* Deprecated $…$ for inline math? @ 2016-02-16 8:22 Nicola 2016-02-16 8:54 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-16 8:56 ` Marco Patzer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Nicola @ 2016-02-16 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context I read in the wiki (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Math) that $…$ for inline math is deprecated in favor of \m{…} and more verbose variants. Is that really the case? If so, what is the reason and what are the differences? Nicola ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 8:22 Deprecated $…$ for inline math? Nicola @ 2016-02-16 8:54 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-16 15:21 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-16 8:56 ` Marco Patzer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-16 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context On 2/16/2016 9:22 AM, Nicola wrote: > I read in the wiki (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Math) that $…$ > for inline math is deprecated in favor of \m{…} and more verbose > variants. Is that really the case? If so, what is the reason and > what are the differences? that page probably needs updating anyway, it's unlikely that $ will be dropped (ok, i can imagine a mode where dollars are dollars) because it's popular as math delimiter; however \m has more potential for structure (we can at some point even considering it an instance of a more general inline math mechanism) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 8:54 ` Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-16 15:21 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-16 15:59 ` Marco Patzer 2016-02-16 16:16 ` Hans Hagen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-16 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans Hagen; +Cc: ntg-context On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:54:25 +0100 Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote: > On 2/16/2016 9:22 AM, Nicola wrote: > > I read in the wiki (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Math) that $…$ > > for inline math is deprecated in favor of \m{…} and more verbose > > variants. Is that really the case? If so, what is the reason and > > what are the differences? > > that page probably needs updating > > anyway, it's unlikely that $ will be dropped (ok, i can imagine a > mode where dollars are dollars) because it's popular as math > delimiter; however \m has more potential for structure (we can at > some point even considering it an instance of a more general inline > math mechanism) Personally, I never use \m and remain (culturally) attached to $...$ syntax. This being said, I am not a TeX purist as I never use $$ ... $$ to delimit display math (even in LaTeX). I see no problem with having a few reserved characters, and since I do not often write about money or use percentages much, I have no problem using {\%} or {\$} when I really need them. I can imagine, though, that a finance writer might find this annoying. I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor and has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode). What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference math should appear rather as displayed math. Alan -- Alan Braslau CEA DSM-IRAMIS-SPEC CNRS UMR 3680 Orme des Merisiers 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex FRANCE tel: +33 1 69 08 73 15 fax: +33 1 69 08 87 86 mailto:alan.braslau@cea.fr ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 15:21 ` Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-16 15:59 ` Marco Patzer 2016-02-16 16:20 ` Hans Hagen ` (2 more replies) 2016-02-16 16:16 ` Hans Hagen 1 sibling, 3 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Marco Patzer @ 2016-02-16 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700 Alan BRASLAU <alan.braslau@cea.fr> wrote: > I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor and > has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using > (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode). The stock vim context syntax highlighting ist terrible, indeed. I modified the syntax files, the result is still terrible (and reflect my personal context writing style instead of being general), but for me they're better than the original ones. Then I contacted Nikolai with the patches a while ago. He told me that he's not maintaining the syntax files any longer and if I want to take over maintainership. I declined because I know I wouldn't have much time at my disposal the next months. > What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? > Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference > math should appear rather as displayed math. While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched automatically (probably depends on the editor as well). Marco ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 15:59 ` Marco Patzer @ 2016-02-16 16:20 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-16 19:12 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-16 18:50 ` Aditya Mahajan 2016-02-16 19:18 ` Alan BRASLAU 2 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-16 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context On 2/16/2016 4:59 PM, Marco Patzer wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700 > Alan BRASLAU <alan.braslau@cea.fr> wrote: > >> I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor and >> has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using >> (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode). > > The stock vim context syntax highlighting ist terrible, indeed. I > modified the syntax files, the result is still terrible (and reflect > my personal context writing style instead of being general), but for > me they're better than the original ones. Then I contacted Nikolai > with the patches a while ago. He told me that he's not maintaining > the syntax files any longer and if I want to take over > maintainership. I declined because I know I wouldn't have much time > at my disposal the next months. context --extra=listing --scite --compact yoursource.tex gives the kind of highlighting that I use here (mixed tex / mp / lua mode) >> What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? >> Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference >> math should appear rather as displayed math. > > While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it > is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you > have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched > automatically (probably depends on the editor as well). > > Marco > ___________________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ___________________________________________________________________________________ > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 16:20 ` Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-16 19:12 ` Alan BRASLAU 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-16 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:20:04 +0100 Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote: > On 2/16/2016 4:59 PM, Marco Patzer wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700 > > Alan BRASLAU <alan.braslau@cea.fr> wrote: > > > >> I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor > >> and has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using > >> (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode). > > > > The stock vim context syntax highlighting ist terrible, indeed. I > > modified the syntax files, the result is still terrible (and reflect > > my personal context writing style instead of being general), but for > > me they're better than the original ones. Then I contacted Nikolai > > with the patches a while ago. He told me that he's not maintaining > > the syntax files any longer and if I want to take over > > maintainership. I declined because I know I wouldn't have much time > > at my disposal the next months. > > context --extra=listing --scite --compact yoursource.tex > > gives the kind of highlighting that I use here (mixed tex / mp / lua > mode) During the last ConTeXt meeting, we held a workshop on Hans' scite setup. It turns out that it depends on a Lua parsing library available on Windows that we did not succeed in compiling/porting to other systems. OK, we did not try too hard... On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:50:33 -0500 Aditya Mahajan <adityam@umich.edu> wrote: > You could try my syntax files for context: > > https://github.com/adityam/vim-context > > It is fairly rudimentary (compared to the syntax files for latex), > but I do get correct syntax highlighting inside metapost and lua > environments. Thank you. This surely must work better than what is shipped with vim. Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 15:59 ` Marco Patzer 2016-02-16 16:20 ` Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-16 18:50 ` Aditya Mahajan 2016-02-16 19:18 ` Alan BRASLAU 2 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Aditya Mahajan @ 2016-02-16 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Marco Patzer wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700 > Alan BRASLAU <alan.braslau@cea.fr> wrote: > >> I do note that the VIM syntax highlighting routine is pretty poor and >> has difficulties around $, which is a symbol that I like using >> (unpaired) quite a lot in MetaPost (\startMPcode...\stopMPcode). > > The stock vim context syntax highlighting ist terrible, indeed. I > modified the syntax files, the result is still terrible (and reflect > my personal context writing style instead of being general), but for > me they're better than the original ones. Then I contacted Nikolai > with the patches a while ago. He told me that he's not maintaining > the syntax files any longer and if I want to take over > maintainership. I declined because I know I wouldn't have much time > at my disposal the next months. You could try my syntax files for context: https://github.com/adityam/vim-context It is fairly rudimentary (compared to the syntax files for latex), but I do get correct syntax highlighting inside metapost and lua environments. 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 15:59 ` Marco Patzer 2016-02-16 16:20 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-16 18:50 ` Aditya Mahajan @ 2016-02-16 19:18 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-17 7:31 ` Otared Kavian 2 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-16 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:58 +0100 Marco Patzer <lists@homerow.info> wrote: > > What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? > > Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference > > math should appear rather as displayed math. > > While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it > is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you > have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched > automatically (probably depends on the editor as well). \math{x²} states what it is. However \m{x²} is cryptic and, although only two characters longer than $x²$, is infinitely less readable than the dollar-delimited variant, even now to MS/Word users who have ever used the equation editor. When typing sentences containing lots of math, having many \math{} commands becomes unwieldy, but, in the end, this becomes a question of personal taste. Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 19:18 ` Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-17 7:31 ` Otared Kavian 2016-02-17 9:44 ` Hans Hagen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Otared Kavian @ 2016-02-17 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users I agree totally with Alan in saying that the inline math signals $\cdots$ should NEVER be left out from ConTeXt, or even become deprecated. Indeed many people move mathematical texts from one file to another one, in order to be able to typeset or print it either with ConTeXt, or other macro-packages. Other situations include when one is collaborating with other people using TeX, where inline math between two $ signs is now well established. Also in many situations people may use ConTeXt for well presented documents, presentations and so forth, while the same text may be published in a scientific journal where one has to use their own formats, usually an ugly flavor of LaTeX, since, unfortuantely, up to now I don’t know of any mathematical journal where one can submit a TeX file written with ConTeXt macro-package. Best regards: OK > On 16 Feb 2016, at 20:18, Alan BRASLAU <alan.braslau@cea.fr> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:58 +0100 > Marco Patzer <lists@homerow.info> wrote: > >>> What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? >>> Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference >>> math should appear rather as displayed math. >> >> While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it >> is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you >> have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched >> automatically (probably depends on the editor as well). > > \math{x²} states what it is. However \m{x²} is cryptic and, although > only two characters longer than $x²$, is infinitely less readable than > the dollar-delimited variant, even now to MS/Word users who have ever > used the equation editor. > > When typing sentences containing lots of math, having many \math{} > commands becomes unwieldy, but, in the end, this becomes a > question of personal taste. > > Alan > ___________________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-17 7:31 ` Otared Kavian @ 2016-02-17 9:44 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-17 16:32 ` Alan BRASLAU 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-17 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context On 2/17/2016 8:31 AM, Otared Kavian wrote: > I agree totally with Alan in saying that the inline math signals $\cdots$ should NEVER be left out from ConTeXt, or even become deprecated. that was never the intention (as one can always run in asciimode) but what's being discussed here is more robust tagging (could be for editor lexing or other purposes) also, but don't tell alan, there is this: \m[i:tight]{....} i:default, i:tight, i:half, i:fixed > Indeed many people move mathematical texts from one file to another one, in order to be able to typeset or print it either with ConTeXt, or other macro-packages. Other situations include when one is collaborating with other people using TeX, where inline math between two $ signs is now well established. Also in many situations people may use ConTeXt for well presented documents, presentations and so forth, while the same text may be published in a scientific journal where one has to use their own formats, usually an ugly flavor of LaTeX, since, unfortuantely, up to now I don’t know of any mathematical journal where one can submit a TeX file written with ConTeXt macro-package. and even if dollars were just dollars one could easily make then math-shift characters again \catcode`\$ = 3 (or pounds on an brittish keyboard or ...) btw, in math mode some chars are special too (primes for instance, a headache character) > Best regards: OK > >> On 16 Feb 2016, at 20:18, Alan BRASLAU <alan.braslau@cea.fr> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:58 +0100 >> Marco Patzer <lists@homerow.info> wrote: >> >>>> What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? >>>> Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference >>>> math should appear rather as displayed math. >>> >>> While I agree on that one, writing \math{x^2} clearly states what it >>> is. TeX tradition aside, dollar signs make no sense here and you >>> have to manually match beginning and end. Braces are matched >>> automatically (probably depends on the editor as well). >> >> \math{x²} states what it is. However \m{x²} is cryptic and, although >> only two characters longer than $x²$, is infinitely less readable than >> the dollar-delimited variant, even now to MS/Word users who have ever >> used the equation editor. >> >> When typing sentences containing lots of math, having many \math{} >> commands becomes unwieldy, but, in the end, this becomes a >> question of personal taste. >> >> Alan >> ___________________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> ___________________________________________________________________________________ > > ___________________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ___________________________________________________________________________________ > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-17 9:44 ` Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-17 16:32 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-17 18:24 ` Aditya Mahajan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-17 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans Hagen; +Cc: ntg-context On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:44:43 +0100 Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote: > also, but don't tell alan, there is this: > > \m[i:tight]{....} > > i:default, i:tight, i:half, i:fixed I spy... I would suggest that one would set (inline) math spacing and other options (like \mathscriptsmode) globally for a document, as it would not be very good style to mix and match. However, I can see situations where one might want to tighten spacing in order to fit a particular expression within a line or in a table, for example. Here, \math[options]{expression} is a reasonable syntax, yet I cannot foresee ever using the very cryptic \m{} for any reason: it is just plain ugly! (No TeXie would ever find $<expression>$ as ugly...) Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-17 16:32 ` Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-17 18:24 ` Aditya Mahajan 2016-02-17 20:45 ` Rogers, Michael K 2016-02-17 22:18 ` Alan BRASLAU 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Aditya Mahajan @ 2016-02-17 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Alan BRASLAU wrote: > However, I can see situations where one might want to tighten spacing > in order to fit a particular expression within a line or in a table, > for example. Here, \math[options]{expression} is a reasonable syntax, > yet I cannot foresee ever using the very cryptic \m{} for any reason: > it is just plain ugly! (No TeXie would ever find $<expression>$ as > ugly...) I am curious to know if there is ANYONE who types in a lot of math and regularly uses \m{...} or \math{...}. I still use $....$ and use \math{..} or \mathematics{...} only when generating output from lua code: context.math("....") etc. is cleaner than context("$%s$", ...) 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-17 18:24 ` Aditya Mahajan @ 2016-02-17 20:45 ` Rogers, Michael K 2016-02-17 22:18 ` Alan BRASLAU 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Rogers, Michael K @ 2016-02-17 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users I use $…$. And for copying text from one TeX to another (e.g. ConTeXt <—> PlainTex/Latex/Markdown/Jax), it would be a pain if I couldn't. Michael > On Feb 17, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Aditya Mahajan <adityam@umich.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Alan BRASLAU wrote: > >> However, I can see situations where one might want to tighten spacing >> in order to fit a particular expression within a line or in a table, >> for example. Here, \math[options]{expression} is a reasonable syntax, >> yet I cannot foresee ever using the very cryptic \m{} for any reason: >> it is just plain ugly! (No TeXie would ever find $<expression>$ as >> ugly...) > > I am curious to know if there is ANYONE who types in a lot of math and regularly uses \m{...} or \math{...}. I still use $....$ and use \math{..} or \mathematics{...} only when generating output from lua code: context.math("....") etc. is cleaner than context("$%s$", ...) > > 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 > ___________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-17 18:24 ` Aditya Mahajan 2016-02-17 20:45 ` Rogers, Michael K @ 2016-02-17 22:18 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-17 23:40 ` Pablo Rodriguez 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-17 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aditya Mahajan; +Cc: mailing list for ConTeXt users On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:24:53 -0500 Aditya Mahajan <adityam@umich.edu> wrote: > I am curious to know if there is ANYONE who types in a lot of math > and regularly uses \m{...} or \math{...}. I still use $....$ and use > \math{..} or \mathematics{...} only when generating output from lua > code: context.math("....") etc. is cleaner than context("$%s$", ...) We should DROP \m{} (in favor of \math{}) as this is really useless. I suppose that in the beginning (and according to Aditya's blog), this was some attempt to be as short as $...$, well only two characters longer. Since no one in his or her right mind would regularly use \m{...} in favor to $...$, as Aditya himself suggests above, it is redundant. Indeed, \math{...}, context.math(¨..."), \mathematics{...} and context.mathematics("...") have their utility. See also below. On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:08:31 +0100 Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote: > you're an american citizen who likes $x^2$ but to call if > beautiful ... €x^2€ nor £x^2£ (in 8 bit encodings / local keyboards > times) all look bad ... Hans, you forgot: ¥x^2¥, ₽x^2₽, ₱x^2₱, ₹x^2₹, ... Besides, U+0024 comes from ASCII and all programmers know that it is a perfectly valid and useful character. > we need a proper begin/end symbol .. Too bad Knuth did not choose ¡x^2! > anyway, this won't happen as it's too tricky: > > $[i:tight] x^2$ This is a good case for \math[i:tight]{x^2} > so for controlled situations (we happen to need it) the \m or s > variant is quite ok (inside xml processing one only needs a few such > calls in mappings The \math or \mathematics variant should work in all such cases. Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-17 22:18 ` Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-17 23:40 ` Pablo Rodriguez 2016-02-18 0:38 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-18 9:16 ` Hans Hagen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Pablo Rodriguez @ 2016-02-17 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users On 02/17/2016 11:18 PM, Alan BRASLAU wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:08:31 +0100 Hans Hagen wrote: > >> you're an american citizen who likes $x^2$ but to call if >> beautiful ... €x^2€ nor £x^2£ (in 8 bit encodings / local keyboards >> times) all look bad ... > > Hans, you forgot: ¥x^2¥, ₽x^2₽, ₱x^2₱, ₹x^2₹, ... > Besides, U+0024 comes from ASCII and all programmers know that it is a > perfectly valid and useful character. Of course, and even ₧x²₧ or even ₯x²₯... >> we need a proper begin/end symbol .. > > Too bad Knuth did not choose ¡x^2! Excuse me, Alan, this is exclamation in Spanish (and only in Spanish). Just out of curiosity, why do you think he should have chosen that? Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-17 23:40 ` Pablo Rodriguez @ 2016-02-18 0:38 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-18 9:22 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-18 9:16 ` Hans Hagen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-18 0:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pablo Rodriguez; +Cc: mailing list for ConTeXt users On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:40:39 +0100 Pablo Rodriguez <oinos@gmx.es> wrote: > Excuse me, Alan, this is exclamation in Spanish (and only in Spanish). Bigre ! Of course, I know that. > Just out of curiosity, why do you think he should have chosen that? I was attempting to make some fun with this thread. More seriously, \( expression \) was already an attempt to come up with something "better". I am risking to state that $expression$ and \math{expression} are two good solutions for ConTeXt and that \m{expression} is, at best, just useless. Furthermore, any suggestion to depreciate $expression$ is, in my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of others), ludicrous. Alan P.S. I am a present writing a chapter on mathematics for a small introduction on typesetting with ConTeXt, so this discussion is highly relevant. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-18 0:38 ` Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-18 9:22 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-18 9:57 ` Marcin Borkowski 2016-02-18 20:37 ` Mojca Miklavec 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-18 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context On 2/18/2016 1:38 AM, Alan BRASLAU wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:40:39 +0100 > Pablo Rodriguez <oinos@gmx.es> wrote: > >> Excuse me, Alan, this is exclamation in Spanish (and only in Spanish). > > Bigre ! Of course, I know that. > >> Just out of curiosity, why do you think he should have chosen that? > > I was attempting to make some fun with this thread. i have always been puzzled by the fact that when the pc showed up the keyboard was not enhanced .. for some reason we kept this numeric addendum (i remember the dec terminals that has this removable rubber cover for the special editor keys) and didn't make that a set of keys handy for editing (ok, try doing tex on a czech or german keyboard where the backslash is kind of hidden ... or those keyboards with no $ key, that must be hard on mathematicians) this brings up the question: would users (here) start using real math unicode input if we had a monospace math font? > More seriously, \( expression \) was already an attempt to come up with > something "better". I am risking to state that $expression$ and > \math{expression} are two good solutions for ConTeXt and that > \m{expression} is, at best, just useless. Furthermore, any suggestion to you don't need to use it ... > depreciate $expression$ is, in my opinion (and apparently in the > opinion of others), ludicrous. nobody says that it will disappear (but novel writers can of course make $ into your favourite currency symbol) > P.S. I am a present writing a chapter on mathematics for a small > introduction on typesetting with ConTeXt, so this discussion is > highly relevant. good Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-18 9:22 ` Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-18 9:57 ` Marcin Borkowski 2016-02-18 20:37 ` Mojca Miklavec 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Marcin Borkowski @ 2016-02-18 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users On 2016-02-18, at 10:22, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote: > this brings up the question: would users (here) start using real math > unicode input if we had a monospace math font? FWIW, you can have Emacs automatically display ∫ in place of \int etc. in your file (and this is no real substitution, just for viewing). Also, Emacs has the "TeX input method", where typing the four keys \, i, n, t yields ∫ (a Unicode symbol) etc. (It works also for inputting properUnicode accented letters, which is very cool and useful.) Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-18 9:22 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-18 9:57 ` Marcin Borkowski @ 2016-02-18 20:37 ` Mojca Miklavec 2016-02-18 21:01 ` Hans Hagen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Mojca Miklavec @ 2016-02-18 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users On 18 February 2016 at 10:22, Hans Hagen wrote: > > this brings up the question: would users (here) start using real math > unicode input if we had a monospace math font? On Mac (TextMate, but I assume other editors would behave the same) the system probably does some character substitution, so as long as I have any font that contains that particular character, I can see that character in the editor. There is no need for a special huge font because the system takes care of it to some extent. This is probably different on Windows and Linux though, so I cannot say that it wouldn't matter, it just wouldn't matter to me as long as I'm using OS X. I have my own keyboard with Greek letters mapped to AltGr+g+"latin equivalent of the letter". So I always use Greek letters rather than \alpha, \beta, ... to typeset symbols. Those are easier to read than \controlsequences. But I probably wouldn't bother entering "unicode math" characters for Greek letters until I would have to deal with frequent mixes of different styles (italic, bold, ...) which would also introduce the need for an easy input method. I ofter use a bunch of other symbols directly (like \sim, logic symbols, ...), but honestly I cannot imagine typesetting math exclusively in Unicode. 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-18 20:37 ` Mojca Miklavec @ 2016-02-18 21:01 ` Hans Hagen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-18 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context On 2/18/2016 9:37 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On 18 February 2016 at 10:22, Hans Hagen wrote: >> >> this brings up the question: would users (here) start using real math >> unicode input if we had a monospace math font? > > On Mac (TextMate, but I assume other editors would behave the same) > the system probably does some character substitution, so as long as I > have any font that contains that particular character, I can see that > character in the editor. There is no need for a special huge font > because the system takes care of it to some extent. This is probably > different on Windows and Linux though, so I cannot say that it > wouldn't matter, it just wouldn't matter to me as long as I'm using OS > X. a proper mono spaced fonts (a gyre project btw) has the advantage of consisten tlook as well as being monospaced and it can also used for manuals on typesetting math > I have my own keyboard with Greek letters mapped to AltGr+g+"latin > equivalent of the letter". So I always use Greek letters rather than > \alpha, \beta, ... to typeset symbols. Those are easier to read than > \controlsequences. But I probably wouldn't bother entering "unicode > math" characters for Greek letters until I would have to deal with > frequent mixes of different styles (italic, bold, ...) which would > also introduce the need for an easy input method. in scite i used the lua extension interface for creating a language strip (so alphabets per selectable language including all math stuff) > I ofter use a bunch of other symbols directly (like \sim, logic > symbols, ...), but honestly I cannot imagine typesetting math > exclusively in Unicode. sure, because there are concepts like \left \right an dthings with limits and such (and multi-character sub/superscripts are to be {}'d) > 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 > ___________________________________________________________________________________ > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-17 23:40 ` Pablo Rodriguez 2016-02-18 0:38 ` Alan BRASLAU @ 2016-02-18 9:16 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-18 9:25 ` Meer, Hans van der 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-18 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users On 2/18/2016 12:40 AM, Pablo Rodriguez wrote: > On 02/17/2016 11:18 PM, Alan BRASLAU wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:08:31 +0100 Hans Hagen wrote: >> >>> you're an american citizen who likes $x^2$ but to call if >>> beautiful ... €x^2€ nor £x^2£ (in 8 bit encodings / local keyboards >>> times) all look bad ... >> >> Hans, you forgot: ¥x^2¥, ₽x^2₽, ₱x^2₱, ₹x^2₹, ... >> Besides, U+0024 comes from ASCII and all programmers know that it is a >> perfectly valid and useful character. > > Of course, and even ₧x²₧ or even ₯x²₯... > >>> we need a proper begin/end symbol .. >> >> Too bad Knuth did not choose ¡x^2! > > Excuse me, Alan, this is exclamation in Spanish (and only in Spanish). > > Just out of curiosity, why do you think he should have chosen that? because # & % were taken and ^ _ were needed for scripts and [] () | = + - are also quite mathematical .. .that doesn't leave much @x^2@ could have worked also, DEK used a keyboard with some special characters (probably dating from those assembler like computer languages) which is why the plain tex format has: \mathcode`\^^@="2201 % \cdot \mathcode`\^^A="3223 % \downarrow \mathcode`\^^B="010B % \alpha \mathcode`\^^C="010C % \beta \mathcode`\^^D="225E % \land \mathcode`\^^E="023A % \lnot \mathcode`\^^F="3232 % \in \mathcode`\^^G="0119 % \pi \mathcode`\^^H="0115 % \lambda \mathcode`\^^I="010D % \gamma \mathcode`\^^J="010E % \delta \mathcode`\^^K="3222 % \uparrow \mathcode`\^^L="2206 % \pm \mathcode`\^^M="2208 % \oplus \mathcode`\^^N="0231 % \infty \mathcode`\^^O="0140 % \partial \mathcode`\^^P="321A % \subset \mathcode`\^^Q="321B % \supset \mathcode`\^^R="225C % \cap \mathcode`\^^S="225B % \cup \mathcode`\^^T="0238 % \forall \mathcode`\^^U="0239 % \exists \mathcode`\^^V="220A % \otimes \mathcode`\^^W="3224 % \leftrightarrow \mathcode`\^^X="3220 % \leftarrow \mathcode`\^^Y="3221 % \rightarrow \mathcode`\^^Z="8000 % \ne \mathcode`\^^[="2205 % \diamond \mathcode`\^^\="3214 % \le \mathcode`\^^]="3215 % \ge \mathcode`\^^^="3211 % \equiv \mathcode`\^^_="225F % \lor i wonder if anyone ever used that Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-18 9:16 ` Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-18 9:25 ` Meer, Hans van der 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Meer, Hans van der @ 2016-02-18 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NTG ConTeXt [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 411 bytes --] On 18 Feb 2016, at 10:16, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl<mailto:pragma@wxs.nl>> wrote: also, DEK used a keyboard with some special characters (probably dating from those assembler like computer languages) which is why the plain tex format has: Could it have been a keyboard especially for the APL language? Just a wild guess, but I remember that language using a lot of such symbols. Hans van der Meer [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1618 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 15:21 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-16 15:59 ` Marco Patzer @ 2016-02-16 16:16 ` Hans Hagen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-16 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan BRASLAU; +Cc: ntg-context On 2/16/2016 4:21 PM, Alan BRASLAU wrote: > What sort of needs for structure could \m address for inline math? > Clearly, an equation to which one might want to have a reference > math should appear rather as displayed math.\def\m#1{\startimath you being a mathematics-physics-chemistry mixed mode user ... \mathscriptsmode0 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode1 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode2 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode3 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode4 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} \def\m#1{\startimath\mathscriptsmode5 #1\stopimath} \m{a^l_an b^ras^l_au} ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | 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] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Deprecated $…$ for inline math? 2016-02-16 8:22 Deprecated $…$ for inline math? Nicola 2016-02-16 8:54 ` Hans Hagen @ 2016-02-16 8:56 ` Marco Patzer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Marco Patzer @ 2016-02-16 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ntg-context On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:22:23 +0100 Nicola <nvitacolonna@gmail.com> wrote: > I read in the wiki (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Math) that $…$ > for inline math is deprecated in favor of \m{…} and more verbose > variants. Is that really the case? If so, what is the reason and > what are the differences? When \asciimode is used you can input special characters without escaping: $5, 1%, etc. But this of course changes the syntax for the original constructs. Comments use %%, inline math becomes \math{…} or shorter \m{…}. More detailed explanation (credits to Aditya): https://randomdeterminism.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/some-thoughts-on-lowering-the-learning-curve-for-using-tex-part-i/ I like the new syntax and almost always use it, but I don't believe it's use is wide-spread. Marco ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-18 21:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-02-16 8:22 Deprecated $…$ for inline math? Nicola 2016-02-16 8:54 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-16 15:21 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-16 15:59 ` Marco Patzer 2016-02-16 16:20 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-16 19:12 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-16 18:50 ` Aditya Mahajan 2016-02-16 19:18 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-17 7:31 ` Otared Kavian 2016-02-17 9:44 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-17 16:32 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-17 18:24 ` Aditya Mahajan 2016-02-17 20:45 ` Rogers, Michael K 2016-02-17 22:18 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-17 23:40 ` Pablo Rodriguez 2016-02-18 0:38 ` Alan BRASLAU 2016-02-18 9:22 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-18 9:57 ` Marcin Borkowski 2016-02-18 20:37 ` Mojca Miklavec 2016-02-18 21:01 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-18 9:16 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-18 9:25 ` Meer, Hans van der 2016-02-16 16:16 ` Hans Hagen 2016-02-16 8:56 ` Marco Patzer
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).