On 22 mrt 2010, at 16:37, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Any thoughts? Either both or the long form only, memory is no longer a reason to create funny names like \infty (can we add \infinity please) I strongly disagree with the idea not defining the forms \lbrack and \lbrace. How do you understand both? Fact is that Knuth defined them in the base of TeX's math. We should at least stay compatible with that. And please do not also kill \infty. Why then not also change \equiv to \equivalent, \approx to \approximate etc, etc? If we start diverging in that way, we loose all ground. To me that sounds as a horror scenario. Who said anything about removing \infty, when you read between the
Am 22.03.10 16:32, schrieb Hans van der Meer: lines I asked if we can add \infinity as long form for \infty.
Good. I have absolute no objection to adding \infinity as an extra to \infty. However, I would plea for a process whereby can be determined which names to add. Will it for example be \infinity? Or do we choose \infinite? Otherwise it might lead to a plethora of nearly similar names for all those Knuth'ian short names. Hans van der Meer