Latin setupmathematics
In order to align with Unicode, \setupmathematics might have Latin shape options, as the Greek ‘lcgreek’ and ‘ucgreek', say ‘lclatin' and ‘uclatin', both defaulting to ’italic’. Unicode added the Latin italic symbols to the Math Alphanumeric Symbols range, so the upright letters are inaccessible when italic is assigned to the Basic Latin (ASCII) range.
On 5/14/2016 7:11 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
In order to align with Unicode, \setupmathematics might have Latin shape options, as the Greek ‘lcgreek’ and ‘ucgreek', say ‘lclatin' and ‘uclatin', both defaulting to ’italic’. Unicode added the Latin italic symbols to the Math Alphanumeric Symbols range, so the upright letters are inaccessible when italic is assigned to the Basic Latin (ASCII) range.
I'm not sure what you mean. One can use \mathupright if needed. We support all the alphabets and these are independent of the basic latin range.  Hans Hagen  PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27  8061 GH Hasselt  The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69  www.pragmaade.com  www.pragmapod.nl 
On 15 May 2016, at 15:37, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/14/2016 7:11 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
In order to align with Unicode, \setupmathematics might have Latin shape options, as the Greek ‘lcgreek’ and ‘ucgreek', say ‘lclatin' and ‘uclatin', both defaulting to ’italic’. Unicode added the Latin italic symbols to the Math Alphanumeric Symbols range, so the upright letters are inaccessible when italic is assigned to the Basic Latin (ASCII) range.
I'm not sure what you mean. One can use \mathupright if needed. We support all the alphabets and these are independent of the basic latin range.
Traditionally constants are set in upright and variables in italic. So constants like “log” etc., are set in upright. It is not used rigorously because of past typographical limitations, but one might in principle do that, cf. the example below, where the integral differential “d” is set in upright to disambiguate relative the function named “d”. When Unicode added math styles, it added italics, expecting the ASCII range to be upright, which would be normal if using a text editor that does not translate math into italics. But the TeX legacy is the opposite.  \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt] \startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula 
On 15 May 2016, at 15:37, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/14/2016 7:11 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
In order to align with Unicode, \setupmathematics might have Latin shape options, as the Greek ‘lcgreek’ and ‘ucgreek', say ‘lclatin' and ‘uclatin', both defaulting to ’italic’. Unicode added the Latin italic symbols to the Math Alphanumeric Symbols range, so the upright letters are inaccessible when italic is assigned to the Basic Latin (ASCII) range.
I'm not sure what you mean. One can use \mathupright if needed. We support all the alphabets and these are independent of the basic latin range.
Traditionally constants are set in upright and variables in italic. So constants like “log” etc., are set in upright. It is not used rigorously because of past typographical limitations, but one might in principle do that, cf. the example below, where the integral differential “d” is set in upright to disambiguate relative the function named “d”. When Unicode added math styles, it added italics, expecting the ASCII range to be upright, which would be normal if using a text editor that does not translate math into italics. But the TeX legacy is the opposite.  \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt] \startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula 
Hans Åberg mailto:haberg1@telia.com 15. Mai 2016 um 16:28
Traditionally constants are set in upright and variables in italic. So constants like “log” etc., are set in upright. It is not used rigorously because of past typographical limitations, but one might in principle do that, cf. the example below, where the integral differential “d” is set in upright to disambiguate relative the function named “d”.
When Unicode added math styles, it added italics, expecting the ASCII range to be upright, which would be normal if using a text editor that does not translate math into italics. But the TeX legacy is the opposite.
 \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt]
\startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula  \appendtoks \rm \to \everymathematics
\setupbodyfont[xits,10pt] \starttext \startformula \startmathalignment \NC I \EQ ∫_S d(x)\, dx \NR \NC I \EQ ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, dx \NR \NC I \EQ ∫_S d(x)\, dx \NR \NC I \EQ ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, dx \NR \stopmathalignment \stopformula \stoptext Wolfgang
On 15 May 2016, at 16:44, Wolfgang Schuster
wrote: \appendtoks \rm \to \everymathematics
This does the trick. Here more carefully composed example, showing how tricky it is to use currently: \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt] \startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, {\mathupright d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula \appendtoks \rm \to \everymathematics \startformula \startalign 𝐼 &= ∫_𝑆 𝑑(𝑥)\, d𝑥 \NR 𝐼 &= ∫_𝑆 𝑑(𝑥)\, \mathupright{d} 𝑥 \NR \stopalign \stopformula The first integral above is how it typically looks, with the differential “d” in italic. The last three changes it to upright. In the last two, relying on Unicode math styles, one must change the other variables as well, x, I, S, to italic. A practical problem is the lack of a good input method, but if that changes, it might be useful.
On 15 May 2016, at 16:44, Wolfgang Schuster
wrote: \appendtoks \rm \to \everymathematics
Here is another variation: using the sansserif math styles, combining with the suggestion in the “Nolimits” thread. It would save the effort having to change all variables into italics by hand, but otherwise, just a hack. (It seems that \diff is defined, though I haven’t found a reference for it.) \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt] \appendtoks \catcode`𝖽=\activecatcode \letcharcode `𝖽 \diff \to \everymathematics \startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, 𝖽 x \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, \diff x \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, {\mathupright d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula
On 5/15/2016 6:36 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
On 15 May 2016, at 16:44, Wolfgang Schuster
wrote: \appendtoks \rm \to \everymathematics
Here is another variation: using the sansserif math styles, combining with the suggestion in the “Nolimits” thread. It would save the effort having to change all variables into italics by hand, but otherwise, just a hack. (It seems that \diff is defined, though I haven’t found a reference for it.)
\setupbodyfont[xits,10pt]
\appendtoks \catcode`𝖽=\activecatcode \letcharcode `𝖽 \diff \to \everymathematics
\startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, 𝖽 x \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, \diff x \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, {\mathupright d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula
What do you mean with change by hand ... isn't that what context can do for you? Operate on all those axes ... (\tf is the upright one). There are extensive mapping mechanisms so best user them. Hans  Hans Hagen  PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27  8061 GH Hasselt  The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69  www.pragmaade.com  www.pragmapod.nl 
On 15 May 2016, at 19:12, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/15/2016 6:36 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
On 15 May 2016, at 16:44, Wolfgang Schuster
wrote: \appendtoks \rm \to \everymathematics
Here is another variation: using the sansserif math styles, combining with the suggestion in the “Nolimits” thread. It would save the effort having to change all variables into italics by hand, but otherwise, just a hack. (It seems that \diff is defined, though I haven’t found a reference for it.)
\setupbodyfont[xits,10pt]
\appendtoks \catcode`𝖽=\activecatcode \letcharcode `𝖽 \diff \to \everymathematics
\startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, 𝖽 x \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, \diff x \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, {\mathupright d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula
What do you mean with change by hand ... isn't that what context can do for you? Operate on all those axes ... (\tf is the upright one). There are extensive mapping mechanisms so best user them.
The idea is to follow Unicode math styles in the input, so the serif upright styles must be in the ASCII range—there are no special math styles for those. Right now, in TeX code, one normally uses the in the ASCII range for math italic. So all variables, now in the ASCII range must be changed to Unicode math italic in order to not conflict with the upright ones put into the ASCII range, unless one does something else: Say using the math sansserif upright for the upright. But that isn’t right either, as someone, now that both serif and sansserif math styles are available, may want to use them to indicate semantically different math objects.
On 5/15/2016 7:28 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
On 15 May 2016, at 19:12, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/15/2016 6:36 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
On 15 May 2016, at 16:44, Wolfgang Schuster
wrote: \appendtoks \rm \to \everymathematics
Here is another variation: using the sansserif math styles, combining with the suggestion in the “Nolimits” thread. It would save the effort having to change all variables into italics by hand, but otherwise, just a hack. (It seems that \diff is defined, though I haven’t found a reference for it.)
\setupbodyfont[xits,10pt]
\appendtoks \catcode`𝖽=\activecatcode \letcharcode `𝖽 \diff \to \everymathematics
\startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, 𝖽 x \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, \diff x \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, {\mathupright d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula
What do you mean with change by hand ... isn't that what context can do for you? Operate on all those axes ... (\tf is the upright one). There are extensive mapping mechanisms so best user them.
The idea is to follow Unicode math styles in the input, so the serif upright styles must be in the ASCII range—there are no special math styles for those. Right now, in TeX code, one normally uses the in the ASCII range for math italic. So all variables, now in the ASCII range must be changed to Unicode math italic in order to not conflict with the upright ones put into the ASCII range, unless one does something else: Say using the math sansserif upright for the upright. But that isn’t right either, as someone, now that both serif and sansserif math styles are available, may want to use them to indicate semantically different math objects.
well, there is no MATHEMATICAL UPRIGHT SMALL X so till then we have to deal with two kinds of input and an explicit document default  Hans Hagen  PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27  8061 GH Hasselt  The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69  www.pragmaade.com  www.pragmapod.nl 
On 15 May 2016, at 20:06, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/15/2016 7:28 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
What do you mean with change by hand ... isn't that what context can do for you? Operate on all those axes ... (\tf is the upright one). There are extensive mapping mechanisms so best user them.
The idea is to follow Unicode math styles in the input, so the serif upright styles must be in the ASCII range—there are no special math styles for those. Right now, in TeX code, one normally uses the in the ASCII range for math italic. So all variables, now in the ASCII range must be changed to Unicode math italic in order to not conflict with the upright ones put into the ASCII range, unless one does something else: Say using the math sansserif upright for the upright. But that isn’t right either, as someone, now that both serif and sansserif math styles are available, may want to use them to indicate semantically different math objects.
well, there is no
MATHEMATICAL UPRIGHT SMALL X
so till then we have to deal with two kinds of input and an explicit document default
Indeed, and users are conservative, so it might be forever. But if efficient input methods come along, then using the ASCII and Greek ranges for upright math style, apparently the Unicode intent, might be useful.
On 5/15/2016 4:28 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
On 15 May 2016, at 15:37, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/14/2016 7:11 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
In order to align with Unicode, \setupmathematics might have Latin shape options, as the Greek ‘lcgreek’ and ‘ucgreek', say ‘lclatin' and ‘uclatin', both defaulting to ’italic’. Unicode added the Latin italic symbols to the Math Alphanumeric Symbols range, so the upright letters are inaccessible when italic is assigned to the Basic Latin (ASCII) range.
I'm not sure what you mean. One can use \mathupright if needed. We support all the alphabets and these are independent of the basic latin range.
Traditionally constants are set in upright and variables in italic. So constants like “log” etc., are set in upright. It is not used rigorously because of past typographical limitations, but one might in principle do that, cf. the example below, where the integral differential “d” is set in upright to disambiguate relative the function named “d”.
When Unicode added math styles, it added italics, expecting the ASCII range to be upright, which would be normal if using a text editor that does not translate math into italics. But the TeX legacy is the opposite.
 \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt]
\startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula
well, i guess unicode assumed messing with math input characters anyway (given that some alphabets have holes) and a normal upright alphabet would have made sense (after all emojs get added by the dozen every time and there is no end at that so why on math) anyway, so you want no mapping then, so this means something like \unprotect \let\mathitalic\mathdefault \appendtoks \edef\p_default{\mathematicsparameter\c!default}% \ifx\p_default\v!normal \let\mathdefault\mathupright \else \let\mathdefault\mathitalic \fi \to \everysetupmathematics \protect \setupmathematics[default=normal] (where of course we default to default=italic) i have no problem adding that (basically one can even go as far as disabling every mapping assuming pure unicode input but i guess that users then would still ask for \mathfoo commands) and of course we need more math fonts that have monospace (one is in the making in the gyre project) Hans  Hans Hagen  PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27  8061 GH Hasselt  The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69  www.pragmaade.com  www.pragmapod.nl 
On 15 May 2016, at 19:08, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/15/2016 4:28 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
On 15 May 2016, at 15:37, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/14/2016 7:11 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
In order to align with Unicode, \setupmathematics might have Latin shape options, as the Greek ‘lcgreek’ and ‘ucgreek', say ‘lclatin' and ‘uclatin', both defaulting to ’italic’. Unicode added the Latin italic symbols to the Math Alphanumeric Symbols range, so the upright letters are inaccessible when italic is assigned to the Basic Latin (ASCII) range.
I'm not sure what you mean. One can use \mathupright if needed. We support all the alphabets and these are independent of the basic latin range.
Traditionally constants are set in upright and variables in italic. So constants like “log” etc., are set in upright. It is not used rigorously because of past typographical limitations, but one might in principle do that, cf. the example below, where the integral differential “d” is set in upright to disambiguate relative the function named “d”.
When Unicode added math styles, it added italics, expecting the ASCII range to be upright, which would be normal if using a text editor that does not translate math into italics. But the TeX legacy is the opposite.
 \setupbodyfont[xits,10pt]
\startformula \startalign I &= ∫_S d(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, dx \NR I &= ∫_S d(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR I &= ∫_S 𝑑(x)\, \mathupright{d} x \NR \stopalign \stopformula
well, i guess unicode assumed messing with math input characters anyway (given that some alphabets have holes) and a normal upright alphabet would have made sense (after all emojs get added by the dozen every time and there is no end at that so why on math)
I do not know why it wasn’t added, but it is te same with the Greek letters, for which there are special options. Another example is the bold italic, that in the past wasn’t available much in typography, so one substituted the bold upright. But both are now available in Unicode, so it would not pose the same problem.
anyway, so you want no mapping then, so this means something like
\unprotect \let\mathitalic\mathdefault \appendtoks \edef\p_default{\mathematicsparameter\c!default}% \ifx\p_default\v!normal \let\mathdefault\mathupright \else \let\mathdefault\mathitalic \fi \to \everysetupmathematics \protect
\setupmathematics[default=normal]
(where of course we default to default=italic)
Yes, but perhaps another name than “default”.
i have no problem adding that (basically one can even go as far as disabling every mapping assuming pure unicode input but i guess that users then would still ask for \mathfoo commands)
I think it is simplest to just align with Unicode.
and of course we need more math fonts that have monospace (one is in the making in the gyre project)
It is available in the STIX fonts. These, and the sansserif math styles are added in error of the idea of expressing math semantics, as pure math uses serifs, and applied sciences may use sansserif. In computer code, in the past, like the 1980s, one did not care about monospace in books, and there is no semantic difference between styles. Keywords might for example be displayed i bold, but there is not semantic difference to when they are not. Perhaps TeX commands might use the monospace math styles. Then the backslash “\” would not be needed. But right now, input would be cumbersome.
On 5/15/2016 7:42 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
(where of course we default to default=italic)
Yes, but perhaps another name than “default”.
well, it is \mathdefault that is used and then gets set ... so default suits well (something latin in the name just sounds weird)
i have no problem adding that (basically one can even go as far as disabling every mapping assuming pure unicode input but i guess that users then would still ask for \mathfoo commands)
I think it is simplest to just align with Unicode.
i guess many math users don't agree with you as tex lingua and behaviour is kind of default ... also, it will take a while before wordprocessors provide the right visual clues
and of course we need more math fonts that have monospace (one is in the making in the gyre project)
It is available in the STIX fonts. These, and the sansserif math styles are added in error of the idea of expressing math semantics, as pure math uses serifs, and applied sciences may use sansserif. In computer code, in the past, like the 1980s, one did not care about monospace in books, and there is no semantic difference between styles. Keywords might for example be displayed i bold, but there is not semantic difference to when they are not.
pure math is fuzzy ... many domains and habits
Perhaps TeX commands might use the monospace math styles. Then the backslash “\” would not be needed. But right now, input would be cumbersome.
there will always be some kind of escape also, the lack of an upright alphabet in unicode will always make some 'x' in the input either math of text so one also needs to indicate where math starts and ends Hans  Hans Hagen  PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27  8061 GH Hasselt  The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69  www.pragmaade.com  www.pragmapod.nl 
On 15 May 2016, at 19:59, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/15/2016 7:42 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
(where of course we default to default=italic)
Yes, but perhaps another name than “default”.
well, it is \mathdefault that is used and then gets set ... so default suits well (something latin in the name just sounds weird)
Well, you are the man.
i have no problem adding that (basically one can even go as far as disabling every mapping assuming pure unicode input but i guess that users then would still ask for \mathfoo commands)
I think it is simplest to just align with Unicode.
i guess many math users don't agree with you as tex lingua and behaviour is kind of default ... also, it will take a while before wordprocessors provide the right visual clues
I just mean, add such extras as the request com along, if you so like. Using Unicode is tricky, to it need to evolve for some time.
and of course we need more math fonts that have monospace (one is in the making in the gyre project)
It is available in the STIX fonts. These, and the sansserif math styles are added in error of the idea of expressing math semantics, as pure math uses serifs, and applied sciences may use sansserif. In computer code, in the past, like the 1980s, one did not care about monospace in books, and there is no semantic difference between styles. Keywords might for example be displayed i bold, but there is not semantic difference to when they are not.
pure math is fuzzy ... many domains and habits
Indeed, formally there are no standards, only traditions and individual preferences.
Perhaps TeX commands might use the monospace math styles. Then the backslash “\” would not be needed. But right now, input would be cumbersome.
there will always be some kind of escape
Hopefully from TeX as well. :)
also, the lack of an upright alphabet in unicode will always make some 'x' in the input either math of text so one also needs to indicate where math starts and ends
As far as Unicode is concerned, the ASCII and Greeks ranges are the upright ones. But those ranges will be used for math italic as long as there are no efficient input methods. Designing ones own keyboard map is a chore with so many math styles.
On 5/15/2016 8:31 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
there will always be some kind of escape
Hopefully from TeX as well. :)
you can use ms word (which has tex like math but with a gui) but eventually typesetting will become a niche and end up in the arts but i will probably not live long enough to see that happen
also, the lack of an upright alphabet in unicode will always make some 'x' in the input either math of text so one also needs to indicate where math starts and ends
As far as Unicode is concerned, the ASCII and Greeks ranges are the upright ones. But those ranges will be used for math italic as long as there are no efficient input methods. Designing ones own keyboard map is a chore with so many math styles.
well, law, week i heard about emoticons in different colors as well as gender so maybe some day we will have a math upright alphabet to distinguish it from regular latin Hans  Hans Hagen  PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27  8061 GH Hasselt  The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69  www.pragmaade.com  www.pragmapod.nl 
On 15 May 2016, at 20:42, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/15/2016 8:31 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
there will always be some kind of escape
Hopefully from TeX as well. :)
you can use ms word (which has tex like math but with a gui)
That falls far short, though there mathematicians using that too, thinking TeX has too a steep learning curve. Perhaps there is an open source alternative.
but eventually typesetting will become a niche and end up in the arts but i will probably not live long enough to see that happen
From the point of computer language design, TeX is not very good. One of the pitfalls of macro programming is that it gives the impression of lambda calculus efficiency without having it so one ends up spending a lot of time figuring out trivialities, which is why eventually was added, I gather.
also, the lack of an upright alphabet in unicode will always make some 'x' in the input either math of text so one also needs to indicate where math starts and ends
As far as Unicode is concerned, the ASCII and Greeks ranges are the upright ones. But those ranges will be used for math italic as long as there are no efficient input methods. Designing ones own keyboard map is a chore with so many math styles.
well, law, week i heard about emoticons in different colors as well as gender so maybe some day we will have a math upright alphabet to distinguish it from regular latin
Doubt it, but I am checking it out: http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2016May/003632.html
On 5/15/2016 10:06 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
On 15 May 2016, at 20:42, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/15/2016 8:31 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
there will always be some kind of escape
Hopefully from TeX as well. :)
you can use ms word (which has tex like math but with a gui)
That falls far short, though there mathematicians using that too, thinking TeX has too a steep learning curve. Perhaps there is an open source alternative.
but eventually typesetting will become a niche and end up in the arts but i will probably not live long enough to see that happen
From the point of computer language design, TeX is not very good. One of the pitfalls of macro programming is that it gives the impression of lambda calculus efficiency without having it so one ends up spending a lot of time figuring out trivialities, which is why eventually was added, I gather.
it's not that bad .. the tex language has a certain charm that one needs to get accustomed to (as does metapost) ... and, combined with lua it's even more fun
also, the lack of an upright alphabet in unicode will always make some 'x' in the input either math of text so one also needs to indicate where math starts and ends
As far as Unicode is concerned, the ASCII and Greeks ranges are the upright ones. But those ranges will be used for math italic as long as there are no efficient input methods. Designing ones own keyboard map is a chore with so many math styles.
well, law, week i heard about emoticons in different colors as well as gender so maybe some day we will have a math upright alphabet to distinguish it from regular latin
Doubt it, but I am checking it out: http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2016May/003632.html
  Hans Hagen  PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27  8061 GH Hasselt  The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69  www.pragmaade.com  www.pragmapod.nl 
On 15 May 2016, at 23:18, Hans Hagen
wrote: but eventually typesetting will become a niche and end up in the arts but i will probably not live long enough to see that happen
From the point of computer language design, TeX is not very good. One of the pitfalls of macro programming is that it gives the impression of lambda calculus efficiency without having it so one ends up spending a lot of time figuring out trivialities, which is why eventually was added, I gather.
it's not that bad .. the tex language has a certain charm that one needs to get accustomed to (as does metapost) ... and, combined with lua it's even more fun
Ideally, there should have been only one language with lambda capacity, and better syntax, though it is a problem figuring out what it might be.
On 15 May 2016, at 22:06, Hans Åberg
wrote: On 15 May 2016, at 20:42, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/15/2016 8:31 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
also, the lack of an upright alphabet in unicode will always make some 'x' in the input either math of text so one also needs to indicate where math starts and ends
As far as Unicode is concerned, the ASCII and Greeks ranges are the upright ones. But those ranges will be used for math italic as long as there are no efficient input methods. Designing ones own keyboard map is a chore with so many math styles.
well, law, week i heard about emoticons in different colors as well as gender so maybe some day we will have a math upright alphabet to distinguish it from regular latin
Doubt it, but I am checking it out: http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2016May/003632.html
There were no responses from the consortium here, so it means that if one should stick to the Unicode model, where the upright styles are unified with the Basic Latin and Greek groups, \setupmathematics should have options added like: lcletters=[normalitalic], ucletters=[normalitalic]
On 6/16/2016 9:15 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
On 15 May 2016, at 22:06, Hans Åberg
wrote: On 15 May 2016, at 20:42, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 5/15/2016 8:31 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
also, the lack of an upright alphabet in unicode will always make some 'x' in the input either math of text so one also needs to indicate where math starts and ends
As far as Unicode is concerned, the ASCII and Greeks ranges are the upright ones. But those ranges will be used for math italic as long as there are no efficient input methods. Designing ones own keyboard map is a chore with so many math styles.
well, law, week i heard about emoticons in different colors as well as gender so maybe some day we will have a math upright alphabet to distinguish it from regular latin
Doubt it, but I am checking it out: http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2016May/003632.html
There were no responses from the consortium here, so it means that if one should stick to the Unicode model, where the upright styles are unified with the Basic Latin and Greek groups, \setupmathematics should have options added like: lcletters=[normalitalic], ucletters=[normalitalic]
what is wrong with \starttext \setupmathematics[default=normal] $a = b$ \setupmathematics[default=italic] $a = \tf b$ \stoptext (i see no reason for different treatment for lc and uc)  Hans Hagen  PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27  8061 GH Hasselt  The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69  www.pragmaade.com  www.pragmapod.nl 
On 16 Jun 2016, at 23:48, Hans Hagen
wrote: On 6/16/2016 9:15 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
There were no responses from the consortium here, so it means that if one should stick to the Unicode model, where the upright styles are unified with the Basic Latin and Greek groups, \setupmathematics should have options added like: lcletters=[normalitalic], ucletters=[normalitalic]
(i see no reason for different treatment for lc and uc)
No, there is no reason  I just got it from mathinl.mkiv.
what is wrong with
\starttext
\setupmathematics[default=normal]
$a = b$
\setupmathematics[default=italic]
$a = \tf b$
\stoptext
That is fine  it is not mentioned on the page http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Command/setupmathematics The idea is avoiding clashes between variables and constants, like this: \starttext \setupmathematics[default=normal] $𝑒 = ∑_{𝑖=1}^∞ e^{i𝑖}$ \setupmathematics[default=italic] $𝑒 = ∑_{𝑖=1}^∞ e^{i𝑖}$ \stoptext
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:02:48 +0200
Hans Åberg
The idea is avoiding clashes between variables and constants, like this:
\starttext
\setupmathematics[default=normal]
$𝑒 = ∑_{𝑖=1}^∞ e^{i𝑖}$
\setupmathematics[default=italic]
$𝑒 = ∑_{𝑖=1}^∞ e^{i𝑖}$
Very, very poor mathematical style... If you really want to use a variable "e", this would call for the use of the function \exp() to be readable. Alan
On 17 Jun 2016, at 06:20, Alan BRASLAU
wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:02:48 +0200 Hans Åberg
wrote: The idea is avoiding clashes between variables and constants, like this:
\starttext
\setupmathematics[default=normal]
$𝑒 = ∑_{𝑖=1}^∞ e^{i𝑖}$
\setupmathematics[default=italic]
$𝑒 = ∑_{𝑖=1}^∞ e^{i𝑖}$
Very, very poor mathematical style...
If you really want to use a variable "e", this would call for the use of the function \exp() to be readable.
Unicode has added characters to enable such writing. Also, \exp is already defined to “exp”, for example for the exponential map in differential geometry: \startformula \exp_x: M_x → M \stopformula Here, the “:” expands in original TeX as a ratio operator, but Unicode has a special symbol for that, ∶ RATIO U+2236.
participants (5)

Alan BRASLAU

Hans Hagen

Hans Åberg

Hans Åberg

Wolfgang Schuster