Integral limits

Integral limits

[Aditya Mahajan]

Hi,

In MkII, it was possible to change the limits on integrals using

    \setupmathematics[integral=...] % limits, nolimits, displaylimits

that would affect how \int, \iint, \iiint, \oint, etc behaved.

I can see two ways of definining a similar feature in MkIV.

1. Define \intop, \iintop, etc in char-def.lua and then somewhere define:

    \define\int{\intop\intlimits}
    \define\iint{\intop\intlimits}

   etc.

2. Define a new mathclass "intop" and use that in char-def.lua. Then, in 
the appropriate math-*.lua file, map intop to the appropriate macro.

What would be the best way to go?

Thanks,
Aditya
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Integral limits

[Hans Hagen]

On 11/18/2013 9:41 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In MkII, it was possible to change the limits on integrals using
>
>     \setupmathematics[integral=...] % limits, nolimits, displaylimits
>
> that would affect how \int, \iint, \iiint, \oint, etc behaved.
>
> I can see two ways of definining a similar feature in MkIV.
>
> 1. Define \intop, \iintop, etc in char-def.lua and then somewhere define:
>
>     \define\int{\intop\intlimits}
>     \define\iint{\intop\intlimits}
>
>    etc.
>
> 2. Define a new mathclass "intop" and use that in char-def.lua. Then, in
> the appropriate math-*.lua file, map intop to the appropriate macro.
>
> What would be the best way to go?

i prefer 2 (as these set the defaults) and we can make a definer for 
specific variants if needed (at all)

is intop the best name? (we don't need to be sparse)

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           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
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Integral limits

[Aditya Mahajan]

>> 2. Define a new mathclass "intop" and use that in char-def.lua. Then, in
>> the appropriate math-*.lua file, map intop to the appropriate macro.
>> 
>> What would be the best way to go?
>
> i prefer 2 (as these set the defaults) and we can make a definer for specific 
> variants if needed (at all)

Great.

> is intop the best name? (we don't need to be sparse)

How about: integral or integral_operator?

Aditya
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Integral limits

[Hans Hagen]

On 11/18/2013 11:45 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
>>> 2. Define a new mathclass "intop" and use that in char-def.lua. Then, in
>>> the appropriate math-*.lua file, map intop to the appropriate macro.
>>>
>>> What would be the best way to go?
>>
>> i prefer 2 (as these set the defaults) and we can make a definer for
>> specific variants if needed (at all)
>
> Great.
>
>> is intop the best name? (we don't need to be sparse)
>
> How about: integral or integral_operator?

we have radical, limop, nolimop so maybe intop and nointop are ok (we 
can have verbose synonyms but then we also need them for lim)

just wrap up what is needed and i'll look into it (or you can provide 
patches)

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           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
___________________________________________________________________________________