Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

newer
Setting expansion depth limit for...

older
applying properties to columns /...

Nicola

16 Feb 2016 16 Feb '16

8:22 a.m.

I read in the wiki (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Math) that $…$ for inline math is deprecated in favor of \m{…} and more verbose variants. Is that really the case? If so, what is the reason and what are the differences? Nicola

Show replies by date

Hans Hagen

16 Feb 16 Feb

8:54 a.m.

On 2/16/2016 9:22 AM, Nicola wrote:

...

I read in the wiki (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Math) that $…$ for inline math is deprecated in favor of \m{…} and more verbose variants. Is that really the case? If so, what is the reason and what are the differences?

that page probably needs updating anyway, it's unlikely that $ will be dropped (ok, i can imagine a mode where dollars are dollars) because it's popular as math delimiter; however \m has more potential for structure (we can at some point even considering it an instance of a more general inline math mechanism) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Alan BRASLAU

3:21 p.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:54:25 +0100 Hans Hagen wrote:

...

On 2/16/2016 9:22 AM, Nicola wrote:

...
I read in the wiki (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Math) that $…$ for inline math is deprecated in favor of \m{…} and more verbose variants. Is that really the case? If so, what is the reason and what are the differences?

that page probably needs updating

anyway, it's unlikely that $ will be dropped (ok, i can imagine a mode where dollars are dollars) because it's popular as math delimiter; however \m has more potential for structure (we can at some point even considering it an instance of a more general inline math mechanism)

Personally, I never use \m and remain (culturally) attached to $...$ syntax. This being said, I am not a TeX purist as I never use $$ ... $$ to delimit display math (even in LaTeX). I see no problem with having a few reserved characters, and since I do not often write about money or use percentages much, I have no problem using {\%} or {\$} when I really need them. I can imagine, though, that a finance writer might find this annoying. I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor and has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode). What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference math should appear rather as displayed math. Alan -- Alan Braslau CEA DSM-IRAMIS-SPEC CNRS UMR 3680 Orme des Merisiers 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex FRANCE tel: +33 1 69 08 73 15 fax: +33 1 69 08 87 86 mailto:alan.braslau@cea.fr

Marco Patzer

3:59 p.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700 Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...

I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor and has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode).

The stock vim context syntax highlighting ist terrible, indeed. I modified the syntax files, the result is still terrible (and reflect my personal context writing style instead of being general), but for me they're better than the original ones. Then I contacted Nikolai with the patches a while ago. He told me that he's not maintaining the syntax files any longer and if I want to take over maintainership. I declined because I know I wouldn't have much time at my disposal the next months.

...

What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference math should appear rather as displayed math.

While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched automatically (probably depends on the editor as well). Marco

Hans Hagen

4:20 p.m.

On 2/16/2016 4:59 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:

...

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700 Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...
I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor and has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode).

The stock vim context syntax highlighting ist terrible, indeed. I modified the syntax files, the result is still terrible (and reflect my personal context writing style instead of being general), but for me they're better than the original ones. Then I contacted Nikolai with the patches a while ago. He told me that he's not maintaining the syntax files any longer and if I want to take over maintainership. I declined because I know I wouldn't have much time at my disposal the next months.

context --extra=listing --scite --compact yoursource.tex gives the kind of highlighting that I use here (mixed tex / mp / lua mode)

...

...
What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference math should appear rather as displayed math.

While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched automatically (probably depends on the editor as well).

Marco ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Alan BRASLAU

7:12 p.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:20:04 +0100 Hans Hagen wrote:

...

On 2/16/2016 4:59 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:

...
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700 Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...
I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor and has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode).

The stock vim context syntax highlighting ist terrible, indeed. I modified the syntax files, the result is still terrible (and reflect my personal context writing style instead of being general), but for me they're better than the original ones. Then I contacted Nikolai with the patches a while ago. He told me that he's not maintaining the syntax files any longer and if I want to take over maintainership. I declined because I know I wouldn't have much time at my disposal the next months.

context --extra=listing --scite --compact yoursource.tex

gives the kind of highlighting that I use here (mixed tex / mp / lua mode)

During the last ConTeXt meeting, we held a workshop on Hans' scite setup. It turns out that it depends on a Lua parsing library available on Windows that we did not succeed in compiling/porting to other systems. OK, we did not try too hard... On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:50:33 -0500 Aditya Mahajan wrote:

...

You could try my syntax files for context:

https://github.com/adityam/vim-context

It is fairly rudimentary (compared to the syntax files for latex), but I do get correct syntax highlighting inside metapost and lua environments.

Thank you. This surely must work better than what is shipped with vim. Alan

Aditya Mahajan

6:50 p.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Marco Patzer wrote:

...

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700 Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...
I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor and has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode).

The stock vim context syntax highlighting ist terrible, indeed. I modified the syntax files, the result is still terrible (and reflect my personal context writing style instead of being general), but for me they're better than the original ones. Then I contacted Nikolai with the patches a while ago. He told me that he's not maintaining the syntax files any longer and if I want to take over maintainership. I declined because I know I wouldn't have much time at my disposal the next months.

You could try my syntax files for context: https://github.com/adityam/vim-context It is fairly rudimentary (compared to the syntax files for latex), but I do get correct syntax highlighting inside metapost and lua environments. Aditya

Alan BRASLAU

7:18 p.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:58 +0100 Marco Patzer wrote:

...

...
What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference math should appear rather as displayed math.

While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched automatically (probably depends on the editor as well).

\math{x²} states what it is. However \m{x²} is cryptic and, although only two characters longer than $x²$, is infinitely less readable than the dollar-delimited variant, even now to MS/Word users who have ever used the equation editor. When typing sentences containing lots of math, having many \math{} commands becomes unwieldy, but, in the end, this becomes a question of personal taste. Alan

Otared Kavian

17 Feb 17 Feb

7:31 a.m.

I agree totally with Alan in saying that the inline math signals $\cdots$ should NEVER be left out from ConTeXt, or even become deprecated. Indeed many people move mathematical texts from one file to another one, in order to be able to typeset or print it either with ConTeXt, or other macro-packages. Other situations include when one is collaborating with other people using TeX, where inline math between two $ signs is now well established. Also in many situations people may use ConTeXt for well presented documents, presentations and so forth, while the same text may be published in a scientific journal where one has to use their own formats, usually an ugly flavor of LaTeX, since, unfortuantely, up to now I don’t know of any mathematical journal where one can submit a TeX file written with ConTeXt macro-package. Best regards: OK

...

On 16 Feb 2016, at 20:18, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:58 +0100 Marco Patzer wrote:

...
...
What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference math should appear rather as displayed math.

While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched automatically (probably depends on the editor as well).

\math{x²} states what it is. However \m{x²} is cryptic and, although only two characters longer than $x²$, is infinitely less readable than the dollar-delimited variant, even now to MS/Word users who have ever used the equation editor.

When typing sentences containing lots of math, having many \math{} commands becomes unwieldy, but, in the end, this becomes a question of personal taste.

Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

Hans Hagen

9:44 a.m.

On 2/17/2016 8:31 AM, Otared Kavian wrote:

...

I agree totally with Alan in saying that the inline math signals $\cdots$ should NEVER be left out from ConTeXt, or even become deprecated.

that was never the intention (as one can always run in asciimode) but what's being discussed here is more robust tagging (could be for editor lexing or other purposes) also, but don't tell alan, there is this: \m[i:tight]{....} i:default, i:tight, i:half, i:fixed

...

Indeed many people move mathematical texts from one file to another one, in order to be able to typeset or print it either with ConTeXt, or other macro-packages. Other situations include when one is collaborating with other people using TeX, where inline math between two $ signs is now well established. Also in many situations people may use ConTeXt for well presented documents, presentations and so forth, while the same text may be published in a scientific journal where one has to use their own formats, usually an ugly flavor of LaTeX, since, unfortuantely, up to now I don’t know of any mathematical journal where one can submit a TeX file written with ConTeXt macro-package.

and even if dollars were just dollars one could easily make then math-shift characters again \catcode`\$ = 3 (or pounds on an brittish keyboard or ...) btw, in math mode some chars are special too (primes for instance, a headache character)

...

Best regards: OK

...
On 16 Feb 2016, at 20:18, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:58 +0100 Marco Patzer wrote:

...
...
What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference math should appear rather as displayed math.

While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched automatically (probably depends on the editor as well).

\math{x²} states what it is. However \m{x²} is cryptic and, although only two characters longer than $x²$, is infinitely less readable than the dollar-delimited variant, even now to MS/Word users who have ever used the equation editor.

When typing sentences containing lots of math, having many \math{} commands becomes unwieldy, but, in the end, this becomes a question of personal taste.

Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

Alan BRASLAU

4:32 p.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:44:43 +0100 Hans Hagen wrote:

...

also, but don't tell alan, there is this:

\m[i:tight]{....}

i:default, i:tight, i:half, i:fixed

I spy... I would suggest that one would set (inline) math spacing and other options (like \mathscriptsmode) globally for a document, as it would not be very good style to mix and match. However, I can see situations where one might want to tighten spacing in order to fit a particular expression within a line or in a table, for example. Here, \math[options]{expression} is a reasonable syntax, yet I cannot foresee ever using the very cryptic \m{} for any reason: it is just plain ugly! (No TeXie would ever find $<expression>$ as ugly...) Alan

Aditya Mahajan

6:24 p.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...

However, I can see situations where one might want to tighten spacing in order to fit a particular expression within a line or in a table, for example. Here, \math[options]{expression} is a reasonable syntax, yet I cannot foresee ever using the very cryptic \m{} for any reason: it is just plain ugly! (No TeXie would ever find $<expression>$ as ugly...)

I am curious to know if there is ANYONE who types in a lot of math and regularly uses \m{...} or \math{...}. I still use $....$ and use \math{..} or \mathematics{...} only when generating output from lua code: context.math("....") etc. is cleaner than context("$%s$", ...) Aditya

Rogers, Michael K

8:45 p.m.

I use $…$. And for copying text from one TeX to another (e.g. ConTeXt <—> PlainTex/Latex/Markdown/Jax), it would be a pain if I couldn't. Michael

...

On Feb 17, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote:

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...
However, I can see situations where one might want to tighten spacing in order to fit a particular expression within a line or in a table, for example. Here, \math[options]{expression} is a reasonable syntax, yet I cannot foresee ever using the very cryptic \m{} for any reason: it is just plain ugly! (No TeXie would ever find $<expression>$ as ugly...)

I am curious to know if there is ANYONE who types in a lot of math and regularly uses \m{...} or \math{...}. I still use $....$ and use \math{..} or \mathematics{...} only when generating output from lua code: context.math("....") etc. is cleaner than context("$%s$", ...)

Aditya ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments).

Alan BRASLAU

10:18 p.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:24:53 -0500 Aditya Mahajan wrote:

...

I am curious to know if there is ANYONE who types in a lot of math and regularly uses \m{...} or \math{...}. I still use $....$ and use \math{..} or \mathematics{...} only when generating output from lua code: context.math("....") etc. is cleaner than context("$%s$", ...)

We should DROP \m{} (in favor of \math{}) as this is really useless. I suppose that in the beginning (and according to Aditya's blog), this was some attempt to be as short as $...$, well only two characters longer. Since no one in his or her right mind would regularly use \m{...} in favor to $...$, as Aditya himself suggests above, it is redundant. Indeed, \math{...}, context.math(¨..."), \mathematics{...} and context.mathematics("...") have their utility. See also below. On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:08:31 +0100 Hans Hagen wrote:

...

you're an american citizen who likes $x^2$ but to call if beautiful ... €x^2€ nor £x^2£ (in 8 bit encodings / local keyboards times) all look bad ...

Hans, you forgot: ¥x^2¥, ₽x^2₽, ₱x^2₱, ₹x^2₹, ... Besides, U+0024 comes from ASCII and all programmers know that it is a perfectly valid and useful character.

...

we need a proper begin/end symbol ..

Too bad Knuth did not choose ¡x^2!

...

anyway, this won't happen as it's too tricky:

$[i:tight] x^2$

This is a good case for \math[i:tight]{x^2}

...

so for controlled situations (we happen to need it) the \m or s variant is quite ok (inside xml processing one only needs a few such calls in mappings

The \math or \mathematics variant should work in all such cases. Alan

Pablo Rodriguez

11:40 p.m.

On 02/17/2016 11:18 PM, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:08:31 +0100 Hans Hagen wrote:

...
you're an american citizen who likes $x^2$ but to call if beautiful ... €x^2€ nor £x^2£ (in 8 bit encodings / local keyboards times) all look bad ...

Hans, you forgot: ¥x^2¥, ₽x^2₽, ₱x^2₱, ₹x^2₹, ... Besides, U+0024 comes from ASCII and all programmers know that it is a perfectly valid and useful character.

Of course, and even ₧x²₧ or even ₯x²₯...

...

...
we need a proper begin/end symbol ..

Too bad Knuth did not choose ¡x^2!

Excuse me, Alan, this is exclamation in Spanish (and only in Spanish). Just out of curiosity, why do you think he should have chosen that? Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk

Alan BRASLAU

18 Feb 18 Feb

12:38 a.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:40:39 +0100 Pablo Rodriguez wrote:

...

Excuse me, Alan, this is exclamation in Spanish (and only in Spanish).

Bigre ! Of course, I know that.

...

Just out of curiosity, why do you think he should have chosen that?

I was attempting to make some fun with this thread. More seriously, $ expression $ was already an attempt to come up with something "better". I am risking to state that $expression$ and \math{expression} are two good solutions for ConTeXt and that \m{expression} is, at best, just useless. Furthermore, any suggestion to depreciate $expression$ is, in my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of others), ludicrous. Alan P.S. I am a present writing a chapter on mathematics for a small introduction on typesetting with ConTeXt, so this discussion is highly relevant.

Hans Hagen

9:22 a.m.

On 2/18/2016 1:38 AM, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:40:39 +0100 Pablo Rodriguez wrote:

...
Excuse me, Alan, this is exclamation in Spanish (and only in Spanish).

Bigre ! Of course, I know that.

...
Just out of curiosity, why do you think he should have chosen that?

I was attempting to make some fun with this thread.

i have always been puzzled by the fact that when the pc showed up the keyboard was not enhanced .. for some reason we kept this numeric addendum (i remember the dec terminals that has this removable rubber cover for the special editor keys) and didn't make that a set of keys handy for editing (ok, try doing tex on a czech or german keyboard where the backslash is kind of hidden ... or those keyboards with no $ key, that must be hard on mathematicians) this brings up the question: would users (here) start using real math unicode input if we had a monospace math font?

...

More seriously, $ expression $ was already an attempt to come up with something "better". I am risking to state that $expression$ and \math{expression} are two good solutions for ConTeXt and that \m{expression} is, at best, just useless. Furthermore, any suggestion to

you don't need to use it ...

...

depreciate $expression$ is, in my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of others), ludicrous.

nobody says that it will disappear (but novel writers can of course make $ into your favourite currency symbol)

...

P.S. I am a present writing a chapter on mathematics for a small introduction on typesetting with ConTeXt, so this discussion is highly relevant.

good Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Marcin Borkowski

9:57 a.m.

On 2016-02-18, at 10:22, Hans Hagen wrote:

...

this brings up the question: would users (here) start using real math unicode input if we had a monospace math font?

FWIW, you can have Emacs automatically display ∫ in place of \int etc. in your file (and this is no real substitution, just for viewing). Also, Emacs has the "TeX input method", where typing the four keys \, i, n, t yields ∫ (a Unicode symbol) etc. (It works also for inputting properUnicode accented letters, which is very cool and useful.) Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University

Mojca Miklavec

8:37 p.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On 18 February 2016 at 10:22, Hans Hagen wrote:

...

this brings up the question: would users (here) start using real math unicode input if we had a monospace math font?

On Mac (TextMate, but I assume other editors would behave the same) the system probably does some character substitution, so as long as I have any font that contains that particular character, I can see that character in the editor. There is no need for a special huge font because the system takes care of it to some extent. This is probably different on Windows and Linux though, so I cannot say that it wouldn't matter, it just wouldn't matter to me as long as I'm using OS X. I have my own keyboard with Greek letters mapped to AltGr+g+"latin equivalent of the letter". So I always use Greek letters rather than \alpha, \beta, ... to typeset symbols. Those are easier to read than \controlsequences. But I probably wouldn't bother entering "unicode math" characters for Greek letters until I would have to deal with frequent mixes of different styles (italic, bold, ...) which would also introduce the need for an easy input method. I ofter use a bunch of other symbols directly (like \sim, logic symbols, ...), but honestly I cannot imagine typesetting math exclusively in Unicode. Mojca

Hans Hagen

9:01 p.m.

On 2/18/2016 9:37 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

...

On 18 February 2016 at 10:22, Hans Hagen wrote:

...
this brings up the question: would users (here) start using real math unicode input if we had a monospace math font?

On Mac (TextMate, but I assume other editors would behave the same) the system probably does some character substitution, so as long as I have any font that contains that particular character, I can see that character in the editor. There is no need for a special huge font because the system takes care of it to some extent. This is probably different on Windows and Linux though, so I cannot say that it wouldn't matter, it just wouldn't matter to me as long as I'm using OS X.

a proper mono spaced fonts (a gyre project btw) has the advantage of consisten tlook as well as being monospaced and it can also used for manuals on typesetting math

...

I have my own keyboard with Greek letters mapped to AltGr+g+"latin equivalent of the letter". So I always use Greek letters rather than \alpha, \beta, ... to typeset symbols. Those are easier to read than \controlsequences. But I probably wouldn't bother entering "unicode math" characters for Greek letters until I would have to deal with frequent mixes of different styles (italic, bold, ...) which would also introduce the need for an easy input method.

in scite i used the lua extension interface for creating a language strip (so alphabets per selectable language including all math stuff)

...

I ofter use a bunch of other symbols directly (like \sim, logic symbols, ...), but honestly I cannot imagine typesetting math exclusively in Unicode.

sure, because there are concepts like \left \right an dthings with limits and such (and multi-character sub/superscripts are to be {}'d)

...

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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

Hans Hagen

9:16 a.m.

On 2/18/2016 12:40 AM, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:

...

On 02/17/2016 11:18 PM, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:08:31 +0100 Hans Hagen wrote:

...
you're an american citizen who likes $x^2$ but to call if beautiful ... €x^2€ nor £x^2£ (in 8 bit encodings / local keyboards times) all look bad ...

Hans, you forgot: ¥x^2¥, ₽x^2₽, ₱x^2₱, ₹x^2₹, ... Besides, U+0024 comes from ASCII and all programmers know that it is a perfectly valid and useful character.

Of course, and even ₧x²₧ or even ₯x²₯...

...
...
we need a proper begin/end symbol ..

Too bad Knuth did not choose ¡x^2!

Excuse me, Alan, this is exclamation in Spanish (and only in Spanish).

Just out of curiosity, why do you think he should have chosen that?

because # & % were taken and ^ _ were needed for scripts and [] () | = + - are also quite mathematical .. .that doesn't leave much @x^2@ could have worked also, DEK used a keyboard with some special characters (probably dating from those assembler like computer languages) which is why the plain tex format has: \mathcode`\^^@="2201 % \cdot \mathcode`\^^A="3223 % \downarrow \mathcode`\^^B="010B % \alpha \mathcode`\^^C="010C % \beta \mathcode`\^^D="225E % \land \mathcode`\^^E="023A % \lnot \mathcode`\^^F="3232 % \in \mathcode`\^^G="0119 % \pi \mathcode`\^^H="0115 % \lambda \mathcode`\^^I="010D % \gamma \mathcode`\^^J="010E % \delta \mathcode`\^^K="3222 % \uparrow \mathcode`\^^L="2206 % \pm \mathcode`\^^M="2208 % \oplus \mathcode`\^^N="0231 % \infty \mathcode`\^^O="0140 % \partial \mathcode`\^^P="321A % \subset \mathcode`\^^Q="321B % \supset \mathcode`\^^R="225C % \cap \mathcode`\^^S="225B % \cup \mathcode`\^^T="0238 % \forall \mathcode`\^^U="0239 % \exists \mathcode`\^^V="220A % \otimes \mathcode`\^^W="3224 % \leftrightarrow \mathcode`\^^X="3220 % \leftarrow \mathcode`\^^Y="3221 % \rightarrow \mathcode`\^^Z="8000 % \ne \mathcode`\^^[="2205 % \diamond \mathcode`\^^\="3214 % \le \mathcode`\^^]="3215 % \ge \mathcode`\^^^="3211 % \equiv \mathcode`\^^_="225F % \lor i wonder if anyone ever used that Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Meer, Hans van der

9:25 a.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On 18 Feb 2016, at 10:16, Hans Hagen mailto:pragma@wxs.nl> wrote: also, DEK used a keyboard with some special characters (probably dating from those assembler like computer languages) which is why the plain tex format has: Could it have been a keyboard especially for the APL language? Just a wild guess, but I remember that language using a lot of such symbols. Hans van der Meer

Hans Hagen

16 Feb 16 Feb

4:16 p.m.

On 2/16/2016 4:21 PM, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

...

What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference math should appear rather as displayed math.\def\m#1{\startimath

you being a mathematics-physics-chemistry mixed mode user ... \mathscriptsmode0 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode1 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode2 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode3 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode4 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode5 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Marco Patzer

8:56 a.m.

New subject: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:22:23 +0100 Nicola wrote:

...

I read in the wiki (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Math) that $…$ for inline math is deprecated in favor of \m{…} and more verbose variants. Is that really the case? If so, what is the reason and what are the differences?

When \asciimode is used you can input special characters without escaping: $5, 1%, etc. But this of course changes the syntax for the original constructs. Comments use %%, inline math becomes \math{…} or shorter \m{…}. More detailed explanation (credits to Aditya): https://randomdeterminism.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/some-thoughts-on-lowering... I like the new syntax and almost always use it, but I don't believe it's use is wide-spread. Marco

3230

Age (days ago)

3232

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

23 comments

11 participants

participants (11)

Aditya Mahajan
Alan BRASLAU
Hans Hagen
Marcin Borkowski
Marco Patzer
Meer, Hans van der
Mojca Miklavec
Nicola
Otared Kavian
Pablo Rodriguez
Rogers, Michael K