* Possible bug in \unit
@ 2011-12-07 21:27 Marco
2011-12-07 22:59 ` Mojca Miklavec
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Marco @ 2011-12-07 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ntg-context
There seems to be a bug in the new unit system for \unit{kbit}:
% bit
\unit{kilo bit} % kbit
\unit{kilobit} % kbit
\unit{kbit} % kB, shouldn't this be kbit?
Another thing:
\unit{3.4e-5} yields to 3.4⁻⁵ that's expected according to
the manual. But how to get 3.4·10⁻⁵ (either with \cot or
\times)?
Marco Patzer
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: Possible bug in \unit
2011-12-07 21:27 Possible bug in \unit Marco
@ 2011-12-07 22:59 ` Mojca Miklavec
2011-12-07 23:12 ` Marco
2011-12-08 20:26 ` Ian Lawrence
2011-12-09 19:22 ` Hans Hagen
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mojca Miklavec @ 2011-12-07 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mailing list for ConTeXt users
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 22:27, Marco <netuse@lavabit.com> wrote:
> There seems to be a bug in the new unit system for \unit{kbit}:
>
> % bit
> \unit{kilo bit} % kbit
> \unit{kilobit} % kbit
> \unit{kbit} % kB, shouldn't this be kbit?
kB is kilobyte, not kilobit, but "kb" is probably also valid?
> Another thing:
>
> \unit{3.4e-5} yields to 3.4⁻⁵ that's expected according to
> the manual.
But the behaviour is wrong. (I just want to say that \cdot 10^{-5}
should not be just an option, but the default behaviour.)
Mojca
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: Possible bug in \unit
2011-12-07 22:59 ` Mojca Miklavec
@ 2011-12-07 23:12 ` Marco
2011-12-07 23:20 ` Mojca Miklavec
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Marco @ 2011-12-07 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ntg-context
On 2011-12-07 Mojca Miklavec <mojca.miklavec.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 22:27, Marco <netuse@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > There seems to be a bug in the new unit system for \unit{kbit}:
> >
> > % bit
> > \unit{kilo bit} % kbit
> > \unit{kilobit} % kbit
> > \unit{kbit} % kB, shouldn't this be kbit?
>
> kB is kilobyte, not kilobit,
Exactly, \unit{kbit} should output kbit, instead of kB.
> but "kb" is probably also valid?
I don't know, if kb is a valid shortcut for kilo bit. kB
outputs kB (kilo byte). I would vote for that kb outputs
kbit (kilo bit). But that \unit{kbit} yields kB is
definitely wrong.
> > \unit{3.4e-5} yields to 3.4⁻⁵ that's expected
> > according to the manual.
>
> But the behaviour is wrong.
I don't know if it's wrong. It's very non-intuitive, but I
think Hans had a reason not to include the \cdot 10.
> (I just want to say that \cdot 10^{-5} should not be
> just an option, but the default behaviour.)
+1
Regards
Marco Patzer
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: Possible bug in \unit
2011-12-07 23:12 ` Marco
@ 2011-12-07 23:20 ` Mojca Miklavec
2011-12-08 5:51 ` Mikael P. Sundqvist
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mojca Miklavec @ 2011-12-07 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mailing list for ConTeXt users
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 00:12, Marco wrote:
> On 2011-12-07 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>> > \unit{3.4e-5} yields to 3.4⁻⁵ that's expected
>> > according to the manual.
>>
>> But the behaviour is wrong.
>
> I don't know if it's wrong.
But 5e3 would render 5^3 which is hopefully still 125.
> It's very non-intuitive, but I
> think Hans had a reason not to include the \cdot 10.
\cdot 10^{x} is pretty long and might be ugly. But writing out
exponent without the base is everything but the right approach. Even
writing out 5e3 is better than that.
Mojca
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: Possible bug in \unit
2011-12-07 23:20 ` Mojca Miklavec
@ 2011-12-08 5:51 ` Mikael P. Sundqvist
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mikael P. Sundqvist @ 2011-12-08 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mailing list for ConTeXt users
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Mojca Miklavec
<mojca.miklavec.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 00:12, Marco wrote:
>> On 2011-12-07 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>>> > \unit{3.4e-5} yields to 3.4⁻⁵ that's expected
>>> > according to the manual.
>>>
>>> But the behaviour is wrong.
>>
>> I don't know if it's wrong.
>
> But 5e3 would render 5^3 which is hopefully still 125.
>
>> It's very non-intuitive, but I
>> think Hans had a reason not to include the \cdot 10.
>
> \cdot 10^{x} is pretty long and might be ugly. But writing out
> exponent without the base is everything but the right approach. Even
> writing out 5e3 is better than that.
>
> Mojca
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> 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
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
I've seen many people writing 5e3 to mean 5·10³, but I've never seen
5e3 to mean 5³.
The writing 5e3 = 5·10³ is sometimes called the E-notation [1]. Even
though I would never write it like that myself, I vote that 5e3 will
render as 5·10³ (or with \times instead of \cdot).
Best regards, Mikael
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation
PS One could ask, however, if this really belongs to a unit package.
In my world it does not, but I can understand if it is convenient to
have there.
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Possible bug in \unit
2011-12-07 21:27 Possible bug in \unit Marco
2011-12-07 22:59 ` Mojca Miklavec
@ 2011-12-08 20:26 ` Ian Lawrence
2011-12-09 19:22 ` Hans Hagen
2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lawrence @ 2011-12-08 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mailing list for ConTeXt users
I solved this = getting what I wanted by writing my own macro:
\define[3]\physicalquantitye{\hbox{#1 \times \unit{10^#2 #3}}}
% \physicalquantitye{number}{exponent}{unit} -- gives short form of unit
That makes sense to me and is working fine.
There are a few more like this on the wiki (units page), in case anyone finds them useful.
On 7 Dec 2011, at 21:27, Marco wrote:
>
>
> Another thing:
>
> \unit{3.4e-5} yields to 3.4⁻⁵ that's expected according to
> the manual. But how to get 3.4·10⁻⁵ (either with \cot or
> \times)?
>
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: Possible bug in \unit
2011-12-07 21:27 Possible bug in \unit Marco
2011-12-07 22:59 ` Mojca Miklavec
2011-12-08 20:26 ` Ian Lawrence
@ 2011-12-09 19:22 ` Hans Hagen
2011-12-09 19:41 ` Marco
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Hans Hagen @ 2011-12-09 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mailing list for ConTeXt users; +Cc: Marco
On 7-12-2011 22:27, Marco wrote:
> There seems to be a bug in the new unit system for \unit{kbit}:
>
> % bit
> \unit{kilo bit} % kbit
> \unit{kilobit} % kbit
> \unit{kbit} % kB, shouldn't this be kbit?
>
> Another thing:
>
> \unit{3.4e-5} yields to 3.4⁻⁵ that's expected according to
> the manual. But how to get 3.4·10⁻⁵ (either with \cot or
> \times)?
indeed .. here's the fix
\unexpanded\def\digitspower#1%
{\times10\digits_raised{#1}}
\unexpanded\def\digitspowerplus#1%
{\times10\digits_raised{\digitsplus#1}}
\unexpanded\def\digitspowerminus#1%
{\times10\digits_raised{\digitsminus#1}}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
| www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-12-09 21:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-12-07 21:27 Possible bug in \unit Marco
2011-12-07 22:59 ` Mojca Miklavec
2011-12-07 23:12 ` Marco
2011-12-07 23:20 ` Mojca Miklavec
2011-12-08 5:51 ` Mikael P. Sundqvist
2011-12-08 20:26 ` Ian Lawrence
2011-12-09 19:22 ` Hans Hagen
2011-12-09 19:41 ` Marco
2011-12-09 19:54 ` Hans Hagen
2011-12-09 21:01 ` Marco
2011-12-09 21:15 ` Hans Hagen
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).