# [NTG-context] equivalent to \newcommand{...}{\ensuremath{...}}

j. van den hoff veedeehjay at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 9 13:36:53 CET 2014

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:05:22 +0100, Wolfgang Schuster
<schuster.wolfgang at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> Am 09.12.2014 um 09:59 schrieb j. van den hoff
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:42:03 +0100, Wolfgang Schuster
>> <schuster.wolfgang at gmail.com <mailto:schuster.wolfgang at gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Am 08.12.2014 um 17:41 schrieb j. van den hoff
>>>>
>>>> hi list,
>>>>
>>>> new to context' and my first question to the list: how can I achieve
>>>> the following (latex') behaviour:
>>>>
>>>> \newcommand{\km}{\ensuremath{K_m}}
>>>> We can now use \km\ in the body text as well as in this
>>>>
>>>>  \km = 1
>>>>
>>>> display equation.
>>>>
>>>> in context'? I've tried something like
>>>>
>>>> \def\km{\math{K_m}}
>>>> We can now use \km\ in the body text but get sytnax errors when
>>>> putting it in this
>>>> \startformula
>>>>  \km = 1
>>>> \stopformula
>>>> formula.
>>>>
>>>> but this fails for obvious reasons (as would using ' instead of
>>>> ensuremath' in the latex' case).
>>>>
>>>> so what I need is a way of defining (potentially complex)
>>>> math-expressions via some shortcuts/definitions/macros/abbreviations
>>>> (whatever) which I can then use
>>>> in the formula environment (or whatever it's called in context'...)
>>>> as well as in the body text.
>>>>
>>>> any help appreciated,
>>>
>>> In ConTeXt you have to write
>>>
>>>    \define\km{\mathematics{K_m}}
>>>
>>> but there is not much to gain from this because you can enter math
>>> mode in the text with \m{…}.
>>
>> thanks for the response. in my silly example you are right (but even
>> there it saves more than 50% of keystrokes). but I'm thinking of course
>> of more tedious math expressions where it rapidly is handy to use such
>> abbreviations -- the more so, if you have, say, 20 different ones
>> appearing repeatedly in the document. but that would work with the
>> \def..\math' construct in the body text. what does _not_ work, then,
>> is to use the definition in a display (\startformula...\stopformula)
>> equation (which it _does_ in latex when isolating the math expression
>> with ensuremath'). so my real question(s) are:
>>
>> 1. is there any way to achieve the same functionality in context'
>> (expansion of math-containing defintion/macro/abbreviation in text
>> _and_ math environment? if yes, how would I do this?
>>
>> 2. if no, would it be sensible (and feasible) to modify \math'
>> behaviour and to make it aware of whether it is called from within text
>> or from within a display equation (in which case it should do
>> nothing...), i.e.  mkae it behave like \ensuremath' in latex?
>
>
> 1 + 2:
>
> \define\Foo{\mathematics{f(x)}}
> \define\Bar{\mathortext {f(x)}{\m{g(x)}}}
>
> \starttext
>
> a \Foo\ \Bar\ b
>
> \startformula
> \Foo\ \Bar
> \stopformula
>
> \stoptext

feeling silly: now it works (so there was no real problem in the first
place...), but previously I definitely got syntax errors when compiling if
the \def'
was used in the display equation (no idea, why, but I must have overlooked
some dumb typo or similar). anyway, sorry for the noise and thanks again...

since I'm really new to context': are there any potential problems with
inserting white space in \define' lines like \define \Foo {
\mathematics{f(x)} }' which I might miss? context' seems to ignore them
and they don't creep into the formatted output AFAICS (which is good).

j.

ps: \mathortext' is nice. should this not be in the manuals/documentation
somewhere? it seems it is not ...

>
> Wolfgang

--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/