On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
Jannik,
You are right. \nabla looks much nicer and is placed correctly. (I still think the \triangledown placement is slightly off.)
My environment files from MkII days have \def\nabla{\triangledown}, so I never tried the true \nabla until your suggestion.
From what I remember, I was the one who added the mappings for
In MkIV: \triangledown is mapped to 0x25BD while nabla is mapped to 0x2207. These are different glyphs. IIUC, the difference in placement is because \triangledown is defined as a mathop (and hence centered on the math-axis) while \nabla is defined as a mathord. Compare: \startformula \nabla T \quad \triangledown T \quad \mathop{\nabla} T \stopformula triangledown as a mathop based on, I believe, unicode-math package in LaTeX. I don't understand what all the "triangle operators" are supposed to do. As such, I cannot say whether the wrong placement is due to the wrong font metrics or the wrong mapping (mathop vs mathord) by ConTeXt. Aditya