On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Mojca Miklavec
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 00:12, Marco wrote:
On 2011-12-07 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
\unit{3.4e-5} yields to 3.4⁻⁵ that's expected according to the manual.
But the behaviour is wrong.
I don't know if it's wrong.
But 5e3 would render 5^3 which is hopefully still 125.
It's very non-intuitive, but I think Hans had a reason not to include the \cdot 10.
\cdot 10^{x} is pretty long and might be ugly. But writing out exponent without the base is everything but the right approach. Even writing out 5e3 is better than that.
Mojca ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
I've seen many people writing 5e3 to mean 5·10³, but I've never seen 5e3 to mean 5³. The writing 5e3 = 5·10³ is sometimes called the E-notation [1]. Even though I would never write it like that myself, I vote that 5e3 will render as 5·10³ (or with \times instead of \cdot). Best regards, Mikael [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation PS One could ask, however, if this really belongs to a unit package. In my world it does not, but I can understand if it is convenient to have there.