Dear ConTeXt folks,
to markup the probability measure and the parenthesis around the argument, I defined the following command.
\define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}\left( #1 \right)}
Unfortunately the space between the P and the left ( is a little big in my opinion. Is that correct or should/can I fix that somehow?
Thanks,
Paul
Am 24.05.2011 um 13:14 schrieb Paul Menzel:
Dear ConTeXt folks,
to markup the probability measure and the parenthesis around the argument, I defined the following command.
\define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}\left( #1 \right)}
Unfortunately the space between the P and the left ( is a little big in my opinion. Is that correct or should/can I fix that somehow?
You can insert negative kerning with “!”.
\define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}!\left(#1\right)}
BTW: You redefine the already existing \P (expands to ¶) command.
Wolfgang
On Di, 2011-05-24 at 15:25 +0200, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Am 24.05.2011 um 13:14 schrieb Paul Menzel:
to markup the probability measure and the parenthesis around the argument, I defined the following command.
\define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}\left( #1 \right)}
Unfortunately the space between the P and the left ( is a little big in my opinion. Is that correct or should/can I fix that somehow?
You can insert negative kerning with “!”.
\define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}!\left(#1\right)}
Thank you for the quick reply.
BTW: You redefine the already existing \P (expands to ¶) command.
I should read the log to notice such problems. I guess I will use `\Pr` then.
But seriously does somebody really need a lot of ¶ in there texts? (If yes I would be interested when.) If not, why is such a nice command name reserved for such a purpose?
I guess this has been there for a long time, so redefining would break too much?
Thanks,
Paul
Am 25.05.2011 um 15:46 schrieb Paul Menzel:
BTW: You redefine the already existing \P (expands to ¶) command.
I should read the log to notice such problems. I guess I will use `\Pr` then.
This isn’t better because \Pr is also a predefined command for math. When you want to replace a existing command use \P because you can just type ¶ when you need the character.
But seriously does somebody really need a lot of ¶ in there texts? (If yes I would be interested when.) If not, why is such a nice command name reserved for such a purpose?
I guess this has been there for a long time, so redefining would break too much?
Not really, it’s a command from plain TeX where input was limited to ascii and local encodings and typing ¶ wasn’t as easy as nowadays.
Here is a list with commands for characters which are inherited from plain TeX and also a few commands (i list them because they one letter commands) for accents:
\starttext
\starttabulate[|lh{\type}|l|] \HC {\AA} \EQ \AA \NC\NR \HC {\aa} \EQ \aa \NC\NR \HC {\ae} \EQ \ae \NC\NR \HC {\AE} \EQ \AE \NC\NR \HC {\i} \EQ \i \NC\NR \HC {\j} \EQ \j \NC\NR \HC {\l} \EQ \l \NC\NR \HC {\L} \EQ \L \NC\NR \HC {\o} \EQ \o \NC\NR \HC {\O} \EQ \O \NC\NR \HC {\oe} \EQ \oe \NC\NR \HC {\OE} \EQ \OE \NC\NR \HC {\P} \EQ \P \NC\NR \HC {\S} \EQ \S \NC\NR \HC {\SS} \EQ \SS \NC\NR % was \ss in plain TeX \stoptabulate
\starttabulate[|lh{\type}|l|] \HC {"{o}} \EQ "{o} \NC\NR \HC {.{o}} \EQ .{o} \NC\NR \HC {^{o}} \EQ ^{o} \NC\NR \HC {~{o}} \EQ ~{o} \NC\NR \HC {\c{o}} \EQ \c{o} \NC\NR \HC {\d{o}} \EQ \d{o} \NC\NR \HC {\H{o}} \EQ \H{o} \NC\NR \HC {\u{o}} \EQ \u{o} \NC\NR \HC {\v{o}} \EQ \v{o} \NC\NR \stoptabulate
\type{\Pr} : $\Pr$
\stoptext
Wolfgang
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Paul Menzel wrote:
Dear ConTeXt folks,
to markup the probability measure and the parenthesis around the argument, I defined the following command.
\define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}\left( #1 \right)}
Unfortunately the space between the P and the left ( is a little big in my opinion. Is that correct or should/can I fix that somehow?
Getting these spaces is tricky; especially if you consider spaces before and after the definition. Choose your pick:
\starttext \startformula A{\mathbf P}\left( ABC \right)B \quad A\mathop{\kern\zeropoint\mathbf P}\left( ABC \right)B \quad A{\mathbf P}\mathopen{}\left( ABC \right)\mathclose{}B \quad A\mathop{\kern\zeropoint\mathbf P}\mathopen{}\left( ABC \right)\mathclose{}B \quad \stopformula \stoptext
Some information from the mathsets module (which does not work with MkIV). The entry is the latex bug database is not viewable now.
%D The \type{\left} and \type{\right} generate a math atom of type inner, %D while for math sets, we want a math open atom. To see the difference, %D consider %D %D \startbuffer %D \startformula %D 2\left(\frac {3}{4} \right) \qquad \hbox{ vs } \qquad %D 2\biggl( \frac {3}{4} \biggr) %D \stopformula %D %D and %D %D \startformula %D \Pr\left(\frac {3}{4} \right) \qquad \hbox{ vs } \qquad %D \Pr\biggl( \frac {3}{4} \biggr) %D \stopformula %D \stopbuffer %D \typebuffer %D %D which gives (notice the spacing before the parenthesis) %D %D \getbuffer %D %D I will assume that if \type{text} is something, then %D the default behaviour is desirable, if \type{text} is empty, then I add %D \type{\mathopen} and \type{\mathclose}. Using \type{\mathopen} to correct %D the spacing is due to Frank Mittelbach, see %D \hyphenatedurl{http://www.latex-project.org/cgi-bin/ltxbugs2html?pr=latex/3853%7D %D %D Mathset module ensures that we get the correct spacing in both cases %D \startbuffer %D \definemathset[SET][left=(,right=)] %D \startformula %D 2\SET{\frac{3}{4}} \qquad \hbox{ and } \qquad %D \PR{ \frac{3}{4} } %D \stopformula %D \stopbuffer %D \getbuffer[PR] \getbuffer which was typed as \typebuffer %D %D Also, if its argument is a single character, \type{\mathop} centers it to %D with respect to the math||axis. Compare the outputs of %D %D \startbuffer %D \ruledhbox{$\mathop{y}\nolimits_x\left{A,\middle|,B\right}$} %D \ruledhbox{$\mathop{\kern\zeropoint y}\nolimits_x\left{A,\middle|,B\right}$} %D \stopbuffer %D %D \typebuffer %D \getbuffer %D %D I have added a \type{\kern\zeropoint} to prevent that.
Aditya
On Di, 2011-05-24 at 09:56 -0400, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Paul Menzel wrote:
to markup the probability measure and the parenthesis around the argument, I defined the following command.
\define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}\left( #1 \right)}
Unfortunately the space between the P and the left ( is a little big in my opinion. Is that correct or should/can I fix that somehow?
Getting these spaces is tricky; especially if you consider spaces before and after the definition. Choose your pick:
\starttext \startformula A{\mathbf P}\left( ABC \right)B \quad A\mathop{\kern\zeropoint\mathbf P}\left( ABC \right)B \quad A{\mathbf P}\mathopen{}\left( ABC \right)\mathclose{}B \quad A\mathop{\kern\zeropoint\mathbf P}\mathopen{}\left( ABC \right)\mathclose{}B \quad \stopformula \stoptext
That looks tricky and complex.
Some information from the mathsets module (which does not work with MkIV).
I hope you or somebody will have time to port that module to MkIV.
The entry is the latex bug database is not viewable now.
%D The \type{\left} and \type{\right} generate a math atom of type inner, %D while for math sets, we want a math open atom. To see the difference, %D consider %D %D \startbuffer %D \startformula %D 2\left(\frac {3}{4} \right) \qquad \hbox{ vs } \qquad %D 2\biggl( \frac {3}{4} \biggr) %D \stopformula %D %D and %D %D \startformula %D \Pr\left(\frac {3}{4} \right) \qquad \hbox{ vs } \qquad %D \Pr\biggl( \frac {3}{4} \biggr) %D \stopformula %D \stopbuffer %D \typebuffer %D %D which gives (notice the spacing before the parenthesis) %D %D \getbuffer %D %D I will assume that if \type{text} is something, then %D the default behaviour is desirable, if \type{text} is empty, then I add %D \type{\mathopen} and \type{\mathclose}. Using \type{\mathopen} to correct %D the spacing is due to Frank Mittelbach, see %D \hyphenatedurl{http://www.latex-project.org/cgi-bin/ltxbugs2html?pr=latex/3853%7D %D %D Mathset module ensures that we get the correct spacing in both cases %D \startbuffer %D \definemathset[SET][left=(,right=)] %D \startformula %D 2\SET{\frac{3}{4}} \qquad \hbox{ and } \qquad %D \PR{ \frac{3}{4} } %D \stopformula %D \stopbuffer %D \getbuffer[PR] \getbuffer which was typed as \typebuffer %D %D Also, if its argument is a single character, \type{\mathop} centers it to %D with respect to the math||axis. Compare the outputs of %D %D \startbuffer %D \ruledhbox{$\mathop{y}\nolimits_x\left{A,\middle|,B\right}$} %D \ruledhbox{$\mathop{\kern\zeropoint y}\nolimits_x\left{A,\middle|,B\right}$} %D \stopbuffer %D %D \typebuffer %D \getbuffer %D %D I have added a \type{\kern\zeropoint} to prevent that.
Could you explain the advantage over `!` which Wolfgang suggested at least for the space after the definition.
In addition, I think AMSTeX defines a command `\DeclareMathOperator` [1] which takes care of these things.
Thanks,
Paul
[1] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Advanced_Mathematics#Custom_operators
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Menzel wrote:
On Di, 2011-05-24 at 09:56 -0400, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Paul Menzel wrote:
to markup the probability measure and the parenthesis around the argument, I defined the following command.
\define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}\left( #1 \right)}
Unfortunately the space between the P and the left ( is a little big in my opinion. Is that correct or should/can I fix that somehow?
Getting these spaces is tricky; especially if you consider spaces before and after the definition. Choose your pick:
\starttext \startformula A{\mathbf P}\left( ABC \right)B \quad A\mathop{\kern\zeropoint\mathbf P}\left( ABC \right)B \quad A{\mathbf P}\mathopen{}\left( ABC \right)\mathclose{}B \quad A\mathop{\kern\zeropoint\mathbf P}\mathopen{}\left( ABC \right)\mathclose{}B \quad \stopformula \stoptext
That looks tricky and complex.
But can be easily hidden behind a macro.
Could you explain the advantage over `!` which Wolfgang suggested at least for the space after the definition.
! only corrects the space between the P and (, not the spacing before P, and the space after ). Moreover, some of the math spacing rules change in \scriptstyle and \scriptscriptstyle; using \mathop, \mathopen, and \mathclose means that those rules are followed.
In addition, I think AMSTeX defines a command `\DeclareMathOperator` [1] which takes care of these things
No. \DeclareMathOperator is just a fancy wrapper around \mathop{\operatorfont ...}. A similar result can be achieved in ConTeXt using
\declaremathcommand [...] [op] [\mfunction ...]
For defining user macros, I prefer \mathop{\mfunction{...}}.
Aditya