On Sunday 07 June 2009 16:55:59 Hans Hagen wrote:
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 14:10:10 Hans Hagen wrote:
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 13:12:11 Hans Hagen wrote:
Peter Münster wrote: > Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the > past?
repaired in next beta (was unwanted side effect of optimization)
"~", by the way, appears not to be respected in math mode; example:
\starttext $3\times 10^{-9}~\text{m}$
$3\times 10^{-9}\,\text{m}$ \stoptext
no surprise, as math has its own spacing model so it all depends on the definitions; i'm not even sure if we shoule support an active ~ in math mode at all
I do not have any strong feelings about this, but do believe that "~" has always provided an unbreakable white space in TeX, both in text and math mode. I also feel that "~" is more readable than "\,".
The activeness of ~ isn't that important, but there really should be a non-breakable space in math mode, and an active ~ is the most logical choice because of 20 years of TeX input. You can pick something else, but it is definately needed, and it should be shorter than
"\penalty10000 \ "
hm, currently ~ is
\penalty \plustenthousand\space
which gives no space in math as spaces are ignored
i have this definition probably for a reason so i tend to be careful with a change in text mode
Reviving an older thread - still a problem. What is the current, proper means of inputing an unbreakable white space? 1. in math mode; 2. in text mode. (I suggest that the same symbol should work in both cases). Use of unicode nbsp can be problematic (and sometimes unreadable). Minimal example: \chapter{X~ray} % OK \startchapter[title={X~ray}] % no good - shows "~" in the bookmarks! (of course, the examples above are "silly" as such a short word would not get broken, unless the width was *really* small...) Alan