[NTG-context] Why is `\P` used for not often used ¶? (was: math: too big space between function and argument)

2011-05-25 Thread Paul Menzel 
On Di, 2011-05-24 at 15:25 +0200, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
 Am 24.05.2011 um 13:14 schrieb Paul Menzel:

  to markup the probability measure and the parenthesis around the
  argument, I defined the following command.
  
  \define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}\left( #1 \right)}
  
  Unfortunately the space between the P and the left ( is a little big in
  my opinion. Is that correct or should/can I fix that somehow?
 
 You can insert negative kerning with “\!”.
 
 \define[1]\P{{\mathbf P}\!\left(#1\right)}

Thank you for the quick reply.

 BTW: You redefine the already existing \P (expands to ¶) command.

I should read the log to notice such problems. I guess I will use `\Pr`
then.

But seriously does somebody really need a lot of ¶ in there texts? (If
yes I would be interested when.) If not, why is such a nice command name
reserved for such a purpose?

I guess this has been there for a long time, so redefining would break
too much?


Thanks,

Paul


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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] Why is `\P` used for not often used ¶? (was: math: too big space between function and argument)

2011-05-25 Thread Wolfgang Schuster 

Am 25.05.2011 um 15:46 schrieb Paul Menzel:

 BTW: You redefine the already existing \P (expands to ¶) command.
 
 I should read the log to notice such problems. I guess I will use `\Pr`
 then.

This isn’t better because \Pr is also a predefined command for math.
When you want to replace a existing command use \P because you can
just type ¶ when you need the character.

 But seriously does somebody really need a lot of ¶ in there texts? (If
 yes I would be interested when.) If not, why is such a nice command name
 reserved for such a purpose?
 
 I guess this has been there for a long time, so redefining would break
 too much?

Not really, it’s a command from plain TeX where input was limited to ascii
and local encodings and typing ¶ wasn’t as easy as nowadays.

Here is a list with commands for characters which are inherited from
plain TeX and also a few commands (i list them because they one letter
commands) for accents:

\starttext

\starttabulate[|lh{\type}|l|]
\HC {\AA} \EQ \AA \NC\NR
\HC {\aa} \EQ \aa \NC\NR
\HC {\ae} \EQ \ae \NC\NR
\HC {\AE} \EQ \AE \NC\NR
\HC {\i}  \EQ \i  \NC\NR
\HC {\j}  \EQ \j  \NC\NR
\HC {\l}  \EQ \l  \NC\NR
\HC {\L}  \EQ \L  \NC\NR
\HC {\o}  \EQ \o  \NC\NR
\HC {\O}  \EQ \O  \NC\NR
\HC {\oe} \EQ \oe \NC\NR
\HC {\OE} \EQ \OE \NC\NR
\HC {\P}  \EQ \P  \NC\NR
\HC {\S}  \EQ \S  \NC\NR
\HC {\SS} \EQ \SS \NC\NR % was \ss in plain TeX
\stoptabulate

\starttabulate[|lh{\type}|l|]
\HC {\{o}} \EQ \{o} \NC\NR
\HC {\.{o}} \EQ \.{o} \NC\NR
\HC {\^{o}} \EQ \^{o} \NC\NR
\HC {\~{o}} \EQ \~{o} \NC\NR
\HC {\c{o}} \EQ \c{o} \NC\NR
\HC {\d{o}} \EQ \d{o} \NC\NR
\HC {\H{o}} \EQ \H{o} \NC\NR
\HC {\u{o}} \EQ \u{o} \NC\NR
\HC {\v{o}} \EQ \v{o} \NC\NR
\stoptabulate

\type{\Pr} : $\Pr$

\stoptext

Wolfgang

___
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
___