Re: Converting math from LaTeX to ConTeXt

["Eckhart Guthöhrlein" <eckhart.guthoehrlein@uni-bielefeld.de>]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:31:24PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> First, by way of introduction: I've been using LaTeX for about five years 
> now, but am quite new to ConTeXt.  I'm a grad student in mechanical 
> engineering, so my primary uses of ConTeXt in the near future are likely to 
> be for my thesis and associated presentations, all of which will likely 
> have lots of complicated equations in them.

In general, it will be very helpful to know how things can be done in
plain tex. This should always work in context.

> After looking at what documentation is available for this, I think I have a 
> fair handle on the basics of including math in ConTeXt.  However, I do have 
> some questions about things beyond the basics that I use rather frequently, 
> and I haven't been able to find useful answers in the documentation or the 
> list archives.
> 
> To begin with, I have the following sets of definitions in my standard 
> LaTeX preamble.  I know that \newcommand and \renewcommand are 
> LaTeX-specific; what's the appropriate ConTeXt equivalent?  Also, do \hat, 
> \vec, and \overline work as I would expect?  And is there a direct 
> equivalent to \boldsymbol from the amsmath package?  (I need something that 
> will handle both roman and greek letters.)

I have been away from context for some time, but I know that Giuseppe
Bilotta has spent much effort on extending its math capabilities. I
think he has written some modules providing amsmath features. But he
will probably comment on this in more detail and in a more qualified way
than I can.

>   \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{{\boldsymbol{#1}}}
>   \renewcommand{\hatn}{\hat{\vec{n}}}
>   \newcommand{\filter}[1]{\overline{#1}}

You can use the tex primitve
\def\vec#1{{\boldsymbol{#1}}
or the context way
\define[1]\vec{{\boldsymbol{#1}}

But afaik there is no checking if a command is already defined?

-- 
Eckhart