robust \dots command

robust \dots command

[Uwe Koloska]

Hello,

I suggest to change the definition of \dots to match the one from latex.  
With the current implementation \dots uses the math \ldots so it is not set 
in the current font.

Latex makes a distinction between \textellipsis and \mathellipsis:

\DeclareRobustCommand{\dots}{%
   \ifmmode\mathellipsis\else\textellipsis\fi}

\DeclareTextCommandDefault{\textellipsis}{%
   .\kern\fontdimen3\font
   .\kern\fontdimen3\font
   .\kern\fontdimen3\font}

\def\mathellipsis{\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp\ldotp}}%

The advantage of this definition is, that we can switch easyly to a real 
ellipsis if the current font has one.

Uwe

-- 
mailto:koloska@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
http://rcswww.urz.tu-dresden.de/~koloska/
--                                    --
right now the web page is in german only
but this will change as time goes by ;-)

Re: robust \dots command

[Hans Hagen]

At 11:52 AM 3/5/01 +0100, Uwe Koloska wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I suggest to change the definition of \dots to match the one from latex.  
>With the current implementation \dots uses the math \ldots so it is not set 
>in the current font.
>
>Latex makes a distinction between \textellipsis and \mathellipsis:

hm, they hardly look like ellipsis -) 

>\DeclareRobustCommand{\dots}{%
>   \ifmmode\mathellipsis\else\textellipsis\fi}

I'm more thinking of an extensions to the symbol mechanism that understanda
math, something: 

\definesymbols[class][text][math] as companion to \definesymbol[class][text]

>\DeclareTextCommandDefault{\textellipsis}{%
>   .\kern\fontdimen3\font
>   .\kern\fontdimen3\font
>   .\kern\fontdimen3\font}

\periods[124]

>\def\mathellipsis{\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp\ldotp}}%
>
>
>The advantage of this definition is, that we can switch easyly to a real 
>ellipsis if the current font has one.

This should be part of the encoding vector, so if someone collects those
... emdash endsh etc are also candidates, although i'm still not sure about
the distinction between what goes into a normal text font and what not, but
the default handler can catch it. 

So, go ahead and collect symbols and they will be added, 

Hans 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                      Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
 tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: robust \dots command

[Uwe Koloska]

Am Montag, 12. März 2001 21:45 hast du geschrieben:
> At 11:52 AM 3/5/01 +0100, Uwe Koloska wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >I suggest to change the definition of \dots to match the one from latex.
> >With the current implementation \dots uses the math \ldots so it is not
> > set in the current font.
> >
> >Latex makes a distinction between \textellipsis and \mathellipsis:
>
> hm, they hardly look like ellipsis -)

Yes, you are right -- but they have the right typeface ;-))

> >\DeclareRobustCommand{\dots}{%
> >   \ifmmode\mathellipsis\else\textellipsis\fi}
>
> I'm more thinking of an extensions to the symbol mechanism that
> understanda math, something:
>
> \definesymbols[class][text][math] as companion to
> \definesymbol[class][text]

How this will be implemented, isn't really important.  We have not only to 
collect symbols, but existing commands (some from plain TeX) that have to 
be changed to the new style.

I am waiting to find a little bit of time, to install the new beta and test 
the new features!

Uwe

-- 
mailto:koloska@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
http://rcswww.urz.tu-dresden.de/~koloska/
--                                    --
right now the web page is in german only
but this will change as time goes by ;-)