On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, M.J. Kallen wrote:
Hi all,
this may have been mentioned before, but I haven't been able to find an answer to this: if I e.g. use $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} f(t)$, the subscript of \lim appears underneath it, i.e. in displaystyle. In LaTeX, it appears below right of \lim, much like with $\sum_{i=1}$. The latter behaviour is of course preferred.
This is a bug.
I use ConTeXt version 2006.08.08, is this bug/feature know and has it possibly been fixed up to now?
No, it has not been fixed, since nobody noticed it before (we need more people doing math use ConTeXt :). As a quick work around add the following on top of your source file.
\def\mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}}
Hans, the definition of \@@mathlimopcomm should be corrected in math-ini.tex
\def\@@mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}} %no \limits
Are you sure?
Well, for the previous reply, I just looked at the difference between LaTeX and ConTeXt's definitions.
How about: \def\@@mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}\displaylimits}
I checked up with the TeXbook and both should be equivalent. Quoting from the TeXbook * double bend at the end of page 144 If you say \nolimits\limits (presumably because some macro like \int specifies \nolimits, but you do want them), the last word takes precedence. There’s also a command ¥displaylimits that can be used to restore TEX's normal conventions; i.e., the limits will be displayed only in styles D and D'. * page 292 (summary of math mode) ¥displaylimits, ¥limits, ¥nolimits. These commands are allowed only if the current list ends with an Op atom. They modify a special field in that Op atom, specifying what conventions should be used with respect to limits. The normal value of that field is ¥displaylimits. So, if I understand correctly, there is no difference between ¥mathop{...} and ¥mathop{...}¥displaylimits. Aditya