On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny@eglug.org> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:40:18PM +0100, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:
>
> I do not agree with you. It is not so important to have the same syntax as
> in LaTeX (exception: it would be nice to get double bars from \| since it
> does not make sense to have \| yield a single bar since | does)

That is the Plain TeX syntax for double bar FWIW.

Regards,
Khaled

___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________

Indeed, and I think that in all I have written (I don't know plain TeX so well) above one can insert "plain TeX" instead of LaTeX.

I can add that I think that the horizontal space between the integral sign and the function is too large. Compare with plain TeX/LaTeX. Maybe that comes from having smaller size of the limits?

I hope that you dont get me wrong. I would like to use ConTeXt more than I do today. But at the moment it just don't give the expected output when it comes to math. Are there any other mathematicians on this list that can raise their voices and tell what they think?

Best regards, Mikael