Re: equivalent to \newcommand{...}{\ensuremath{...}}

From: Wolfgang Schuster <schuster.wolfgang@gmail.com>
To: "j. van den hoff" <veedeehjay@googlemail.com>
Cc: mailing list for ConTeXt users <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
Subject: Re: equivalent to \newcommand{...}{\ensuremath{...}}
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:05:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <12173030-9C54-4287-9491-DCDA6F04D904@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.xqle9vvnp7eajd@muck.fritz.box>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2734 bytes --]

> Am 09.12.2014 um 09:59 schrieb j. van den hoff <veedeehjay@googlemail.com>:
> 
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:42:03 +0100, Wolfgang Schuster <schuster.wolfgang@gmail.com <mailto:schuster.wolfgang@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.12.2014 um 17:41 schrieb j. van den hoff <veedeehjay@googlemail.com>:
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> \begin{equation}
>>>  \km = 1
>>> \end{equation}
>>> 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

Wolfgang

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 9153 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 485 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________