subject:"\[NTG\-context\] Deprecated $…$ for inline math\?"

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-18 Thread Hans Hagen


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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-18 Thread Mojca Miklavec

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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-18 Thread Marcin Borkowski

On 2016-02-18, 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?

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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-18 Thread Meer, Hans van der


On 18 Feb 2016, at 10:16, Hans Hagen > 
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

___
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: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-18 Thread Hans Hagen


On 2/18/2016 1:38 AM, Alan BRASLAU wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:40:39 +0100
Pablo Rodriguez  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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-18 Thread Hans Hagen


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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-17 Thread Alan BRASLAU

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:40:39 +0100
Pablo Rodriguez  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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-17 Thread Pablo Rodriguez

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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-17 Thread Alan BRASLAU

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:24:53 -0500
Aditya Mahajan  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  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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-17 Thread Rogers, Michael K

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  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 $$ as
>> ugly...)
>
> I am curious to know if there is ANYONE who types in a lot of math and 
> regularly uses \m{...} or \math{...}. I still use $$ 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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-17 Thread Aditya Mahajan


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 $$ 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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-17 Thread Alan BRASLAU

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:44:43 +0100
Hans Hagen  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 $$ 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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-17 Thread Hans Hagen


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  wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:58 +0100
Marco Patzer  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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Otared Kavian

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  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:58 +0100
> Marco Patzer  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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Alan BRASLAU

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:20:04 +0100
Hans Hagen  wrote:

> On 2/16/2016 4:59 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700
> > Alan BRASLAU  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  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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Aditya Mahajan


On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Marco Patzer wrote:


On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700
Alan BRASLAU  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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Hans Hagen


On 2/16/2016 4:59 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700
Alan BRASLAU  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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Hans Hagen


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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Marco Patzer

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:21:42 -0700
Alan BRASLAU  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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Alan BRASLAU

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:54:25 +0100
Hans Hagen  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.bras...@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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Marco Patzer

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:22:23 +0100
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?

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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Hans Hagen


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
___

[NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

2016-02-16 Thread Nicola


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
___

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

Re: [NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

[NTG-context] Deprecated $…$ for inline math?

23 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information