Dear Mikael, It is TEX. Wim W. Wilhelm

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Wim W. Wilhelm wrote:

...

use $\Vert v \Vert$

Wim W. Wilhelm

...

Dear list,

\starttext $\|v\|$ \stoptext

I expect two vertical bars on each side of v, but see only one.

Tested with the latest beta.

/Mikael

Thank you for your reply, Wim. I guess most/some people writing mathematics are used to write \| to get double bars from LaTeX, and if I remember correctly it was also like this in ConTeXt some time ago.

If this is changed on purpose I can very well use \Vert instead.

/Mikael ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Wim W. Wilhelm wrote:

...

Dear Mikael,

It is TEX.

Wim W. Wilhelm

...

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Wim W. Wilhelm wrote:

...

use $\Vert v \Vert$

Wim W. Wilhelm

...

Dear list,

\starttext $\|v\|$ \stoptext

I expect two vertical bars on each side of v, but see only one.

Tested with the latest beta.

/Mikael

Thank you for your reply, Wim. I guess most/some people writing mathematics are used to write \| to get double bars from LaTeX, and if I remember correctly it was also like this in ConTeXt some time ago.

If this is changed on purpose I can very well use \Vert instead.

/Mikael

___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Wim,

oh, sorry. I did not know that TeX set \| to \vert and not \Vert. Then probably my memory fails me that \| gave \Vert in earlier versions of ConTeXt aswell. I'll have to get used to \Vert, I guess.

/Mikael

Dear Wim, funny thing is that now that I had a look in my copy of the TeXBook I see \let\|=\Vert on page 361. /Mikael

Indeed, luigi, but is that what you expect? /Mikael On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:19 PM, luigi scarso wrote:

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:

...

Dear list,

\starttext $\|v\|$ \stoptext

I expect two vertical bars on each side of v, but see only one.

Tested with the latest beta.

For what I see

\starttext $\|v\|$

$\Vert v\Vert$

$\vert v\vert$

$‖v‖$

\stoptext

|𝑣| ‖𝑣‖ |𝑣| ‖𝑣‖

-- luigi ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM, luigi scarso wrote:

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:

...

Indeed, luigi, but is that what you expect? Hm, hard to say for me. I find natural to use \vert and \Vert or, if possible, | and || . LaTeXt users find natural that \| is ||, but I don't see, as a ConTeXt user, a particular meaning in \| .

I think that since \| is defined as \Vert in the TeXbook and everyone writing mathematics in LaTeX are used to \| to mean \Vert there is no reason to have different behaviour in ConTeXt. /Mikael

On 2/19/2013 8:36 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:

Hi All,

In a way, it is correct that for compatibility reasons and and convert it is good to keep the old syntax.

Yet, ConTeXt is suppose to be more natural.

I consider the \{ \} \| etc to be escapes for tex characters. In fact, if one wants || in math then it's more natural to support || directly.

Personally, I find some of the names used in TeX and LaTeX often hard to find. Whenever, I needed a function or symbol I to often go look it up. I mean that \vert and \Vert are still cryptic. They can stand for abs, for all in, etc. ..

a next step (already partially done) is that we organize the names in dictionaries as in open math (a bit of work)

Me, I prefer names that reflect the their functions,

me too and i wonder if we should have proper names as well i.e. use verbose names as default (in char-def.lua) and define the short ones as synonyms (in a tex file) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Mikeal, Am 19.02.2013 um 10:50 schrieb Mikael P. Sundqvist :

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Hans Hagen wrote:

...

[snip, snip]

...

a next step (already partially done) is that we organize the names in dictionaries as in open math (a bit of work)

...

Me, I prefer names that reflect the their functions,

me too and i wonder if we should have proper names as well i.e. use verbose names as default (in char-def.lua) and define the short ones as synonyms (in a tex file)

Hans

[snip, snip]

Fine. In principal I've nothing against typing || for double bars (even though people moving from TeX/LaTeX probably will be used to | for one bar and \| for two bars). Some questions:

* Can one expect to get the right (that is the same as \Vert gives) spacing by typing || (two bars) in ConTeXt in the future? I think we need to find a between input shortcuts and feasiblity. One could just use unicode 02016 and \Vert. In unicodemath you also have \Vvert for three bars.

* Sometimes one would like to write absoulte value of z times absolute value of w, i.e. |z| times |w|. What if one writes |z||w|, will the double bar in the middle be equivalent to \Vert? (That is not wanted) The proper way to lay this out is with a little whitspace between the to values, so input should be |z| |w| and not as |z||w| !

* Will it be possible to write \Bigl|| and \Bigr|| to scale both bars to other sizes? * What if one would like to have three bars with the same spacing between the bars as in \Vert? See above!

regards Keith.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Hans Hagen wrote:

On 2/19/2013 8:36 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:

...

Hi All,

In a way, it is correct that for compatibility reasons and and convert it is good to keep the old syntax.

Yet, ConTeXt is suppose to be more natural.

I consider the \{ \} \| etc to be escapes for tex characters. In fact, if one wants || in math then it's more natural to support || directly.

Except that braces actually need an escape, while bars don't. I don't see any advantage of "\|" representing a single vertical bar, it only breaks compatibility and helps confuse those who used "\|" in other flavours of TeX. There is a nice thread on SX: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/498/mid-vert-lvert-rvert As others have already written, one should use the appropriate unicode character, not two bars. (Two bars are a separate symbol - I guess that you probably don't want to recognise two subsequent bars are replace them with a different glyph?) And even then there is a problem with typographical conventions: whether the symbol is used as left/right delimiter, as a binary operator, ... Mojca