From: Taco Hoekwater <taco.hoekwater@wkap.nl>
Cc: Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl>, NTG-CONTEXT <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
Subject: Re: sqrt
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:09:31 +0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <13866.62395.750000.399541@PC709> (raw)
>>>>> "TB" == Tobias Burnus <burnus@gmx.de> writes:
TB> Hi Hans,
>> I've been giving this \sqrt some thinking.
>>
>> (1) I think \root ... \of ... is not that bad at all. It follows the
>> flow of thinking.
TB> It does. But {a \over b} does as well and we have also \fraction{a}{b}
TB> defined in ConTeXt; moreover it is easier to remember \sqrt{x} and
TB> \sqrt[3]{x} than
TB> having \sqrt{x} and \root3\of x
agree.
>> (2) \sqrt is a plain tex macro, which we cannot simply redefine.
TB> Agreed.
agree.
>> (3) Personally I always think of sqrt as being the root 2 of something,
>> and therefore \sqrt[x]{} is (correct me if I'm wrong) a rather strange
>> one.
TB> {\root3\of{}} is but {\root3\of x} isn't that strange.
TB> [I wrongly wrote \sqrt[n]{x} = \root x\of n in a privious mail, it's in
TB> LaTeX of cause: \sqrt{x} = \sqrt{x} and \sqrt[n]{x} = {\root n\of x}
A short explanation, in reply to something Hans wrote earlier:
Taco, is there really no way to determine the local math style?
No. And that is principally caused by \over, which is why it has to go
away in a future version of NTS. For the sake of consistency, it makes
sense to remove the other infix notations (like \root \of) as well.
Consider this:
$$ {a \over b} \over c$$
When TeX scans this (and expanding the macros along the way), it first
sees an $a$, in displaystyle. Next it sees $\over$, which switches the
$a$ to scriptstyle (at least). now it also finds and $b$ in
scriptstyle, closes the subform and moves on. Yet another \over!. So
*all* of the preceding material moves into scriptscriptstyle. This is
why you can't get at the current math style: Knuth decided not to have
unreliable information available to the macro programmer.
>> On the other hand, I like the idea of a more verbose syntax. Maybe Taco
>> has some ideas on this, especially when we look at math ML and the
>> possibility to map tex on MML vise vera.
TB> Agreed. But we should also look at AMSTeX/AMSLaTeX, but I'm sure Taco
TB> will do so anyway.
Of course.
Greetings, Taco
--
Taco Hoekwater taco.hoekwater@wkap.nl
Kluwer Academic Publishers -- Pre Press --
Achterom 119, 3311 KB Dordrecht, The Netherlands tel. 31-78-6392550
---------------------------------------------------------------------
next reply other threads:[~1998-10-19 8:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-10-19 8:09 Taco Hoekwater [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1998-10-18 15:39 sqrt Tobias Burnus
1998-10-17 20:48 sqrt Hans Hagen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=13866.62395.750000.399541@PC709 \
--to=taco.hoekwater@wkap.nl \
--cc=ntg-context@ntg.nl \
--cc=pragma@wxs.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).