Re: [NTG-context] Monospace fallback kerning

On 19 Dec 2018, at 22:24, Hans Hagen wrote:

On 12/19/2018 8:43 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:

...

...

On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:25, Hans Hagen wrote:

...

...

\startformula \unstackscripts 𝑷₂₀(0), ∀²𝑥⁰⁺²₂₀: 𝑷₂₀(𝑥⁰⁺²₂₀) ⇒ 𝑷₂₀(s(𝑥⁰⁺²₂₀)) ⊢ ∀¹𝑦⁰⁺¹₂₀ 𝑷₂₀(𝑦⁰⁺¹₂₀) \stopformula That might be useful for those depending on it, and presumably there is a \stackscripts, too. Just comes to my mind: Though probably non-standard in typesetting, one might make a slight typographic difference between 𝑥²₀ and 𝑥₀² by letting the sub- or superscripts that come later partially, but not fully, to the position of the one that comes before. For example, 𝑥₀² might mean the square of 𝑥₀, and 𝑥²₀ the component 0 of 𝑥², not necessarily the same. Traditionally, such things are left for the reader to interpret.

ok, we can apply selectively ... {\unstackscripts ... {\stackscripts ...} ... } ... maybe we need short commands that take an argument, like \unstack{............} but that might clash ... just give it some thought ... Your suggestion might be great for simplifying tensor component notation, as one then can omit separators like {} or |. But then what would happen, even perhaps not that common, if one would need to have it stacked somewhere else in the formula. So in my mind, this would be just top level \unstackscripts … \stackscripts … \unstackscripts. The other idea would be something like \partialstackscripts, but actual demand is unclear. :-) well, playwith what we have now and we can always extend it

Indeed. It came to my mind, because I started to think about a good ways to represent sub- and superscripts in a parser.