On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Keith J. Schultz <schultzk@uni-trier.de>wrote:

>
> Am 11.02.2014 um 09:57 schrieb Mikael P. Sundqvist <mickep@gmail.com>:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/2014 9:24 AM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I used ConTeXt (mkii) to write my PhD thesis in Mathematics in 2008. It
>>> worked just fine.
>>>
>>> At the moment I write some exams and hand-outs using ConTeXt, but
>>> research using LaTeX (since the journals do not really accept ConTeXt
>>> and my collaborators dont know ConTeXt).
>>>
>>> It certainly works OK to write math in ConTeXt, but I have a feeling
>>> that there are some things that are somewhat broken or not finetuned to
>>> output what mathematicians expect. Look at the attached pdf files [1]
>>> l.pdf (from LaTeX) and c.pdf (from latest standalone ConTeXt), with
>>> source l.tex and c.tex for some examples.
>>>
>>
>> In mkiv we follow some alternative approaches compared to mkii (and
>> probably other tex macro packages) and some aspects indeed might need
>> tuning (or more configuration options) .. I try hard to get away from
>> hackery solutions (for several reasons).
>>
>
> I agree it is good to avoid hackery as long as possible, and I for sure is
> ready to relearn how to write some things. With the examples I gave in the
> previous email in mind:
>
> * How am I supposed to write first derivative (f') and second derivative
> (f'') in such a way that they have the same type of prime (the prime in the
> first derivative is the one I prefer)?
>
> No sure if to call this a bug! It seems that a single prime is always
> larger than multiple ones!
> You can always change its size!
>

I think the user should not have to change its size. All primes should have
the same size, independent if they are one or several.


>
> * How am I supposed to write f_xx'' to get the output as in the LaTeX
> example (i.e. so that the primes are over the xx)?
>
> have to switch things around: f''_xx or f''_{xx}  depending on the actual
> result you want.
>

I know about the grouping. Please have a look at my example files in my
earlier post in this thread.


>
>
> * Could the default placement of limits in integrals be changed
> (integral=nolimits)? This is how it is done in almost all math books).
>
> Not sure what you want here! example? can be LateX
>

As above, I gave examples...

Best regards, Mikael


>
> * What about the size and finetuning of placement of indices in integrals
> and sums (and probably products, unions, ...)?
> * I remember I suggested that \| should be double bars in a previous
> thread on this list. Is there any drawback in giving double bars for \|? Of
> course I can relearn and use \lVert and \rVert, but I have a feeling that
> if we want people moving from LaTeX to ConTeXt, then this is the kind of
> things that should just work as expected...
>
> Best regards, Mikael
>
>
> regards
> Keith
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>