On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
Jannik,
You are right. \nabla looks much nicer and is placed correctly. (I
still think the \triangledown placement is slightly off.)
My environment files from MkII days have \def\nabla{\triangledown}, so I
never tried the true \nabla until your suggestion.
In MkIV: \triangledown is mapped to 0x25BD while nabla is mapped to
0x2207. These are different glyphs.
IIUC, the difference in placement is because \triangledown is defined as a
mathop (and hence centered on the math-axis) while \nabla is defined as a
mathord. Compare:
\startformula
\nabla T
\quad
\triangledown T
\quad
\mathop{\nabla} T
\stopformula
From what I remember, I was the one who added the mappings for
triangledown as a mathop based on, I believe, unicode-math package in
LaTeX. I don't understand what all the "triangle operators" are supposed
to do. As such, I cannot say whether the wrong placement is due to the
wrong font metrics or the wrong mapping (mathop vs mathord) by ConTeXt.
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
