[NTG-context] lbrack?
This program:
\setupbodyfont[lmodern]
\starttext
\type{$\lbrace$} $\lbrace$\crlf
\type{$\lbrack$} $\lbrack$\crlf
\stoptext
This does typeset a left brace but chokes on \lbrack.
I took my copy of the TeX Book and find \brack as one of the defined
delimiters in chapter 17. How come?
ConTeXt ver: 2010.03.20 22:59 MKIV fmt: 2010.3.21 int: english/
english
fonts : preloading latin modern fonts
bodyfont: 12pt rm is loaded
language: language en is active
systems : begin file test.tex at line 2
! Undefined control sequence.
recently read \lbrack
l.4 \type{$\lbrack$} $\lbrack
$\crlf
?
Hans van der Meer
___
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] lbrack?
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Hans van der Meer wrote:
This program:
\setupbodyfont[lmodern]
\starttext
\type{$\lbrace$} $\lbrace$\crlf
\type{$\lbrack$} $\lbrack$\crlf
\stoptext
This does typeset a left brace but chokes on \lbrack.
I took my copy of the TeX Book and find \brack as one of the defined
delimiters in chapter 17. How come?
ConTeXt ver: 2010.03.20 22:59 MKIV fmt: 2010.3.21 int: english/english
fonts : preloading latin modern fonts
bodyfont: 12pt rm is loaded
language: language en is active
systems : begin file test.tex at line 2
! Undefined control sequence.
recently read \lbrack
l.4 \type{$\lbrack$} $\lbrack
$\crlf
?
For some reason it is defined as \lbracket in MkIV and undefined in MkII.
Does anyone use \lbracket? If not, we can change it to \lbrack. Otherwise,
we can also have both \lbrack and \lbracket defined.
Any thoughts?
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] lbrack?
Am 22.03.10 16:00, schrieb Aditya Mahajan: For some reason it is defined as \lbracket in MkIV and undefined in MkII. Does anyone use \lbracket? If not, we can change it to \lbrack. Otherwise, we can also have both \lbrack and \lbracket defined. Any thoughts? Either both or the long form only, memory is no longer a reason to create funny names like \infty (can we add \infinity please) 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 ___
Re: [NTG-context] lbrack?
On 22 mrt 2010, at 16:18, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: Am 22.03.10 16:00, schrieb Aditya Mahajan: For some reason it is defined as \lbracket in MkIV and undefined in MkII. Does anyone use \lbracket? If not, we can change it to \lbrack. Otherwise, we can also have both \lbrack and \lbracket defined. Any thoughts? Either both or the long form only, memory is no longer a reason to create funny names like \infty (can we add \infinity please) I strongly disagree with the idea not defining the forms \lbrack and \lbrace. Fact is that Knuth defined them in the base of TeX's math. We should at least stay compatible with that. And please do not also kill \infty. Why then not also change \equiv to \equivalent, \approx to \approximate etc, etc? If we start diverging in that way, we loose all ground. To me that sounds as a horror scenario. 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] lbrack?
Am 22.03.10 16:32, schrieb Hans van der Meer: Any thoughts? Either both or the long form only, memory is no longer a reason to create funny names like \infty (can we add \infinity please) I strongly disagree with the idea not defining the forms \lbrack and \lbrace. How do you understand both? Fact is that Knuth defined them in the base of TeX's math. We should at least stay compatible with that. And please do not also kill \infty. Why then not also change \equiv to \equivalent, \approx to \approximate etc, etc? If we start diverging in that way, we loose all ground. To me that sounds as a horror scenario. Who said anything about removing \infty, when you read between the lines I asked if we can add \infinity as long form for \infty. 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 ___
Re: [NTG-context] lbrack?
On 22 mrt 2010, at 16:37, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: Am 22.03.10 16:32, schrieb Hans van der Meer: Any thoughts? Either both or the long form only, memory is no longer a reason to create funny names like \infty (can we add \infinity please) I strongly disagree with the idea not defining the forms \lbrack and \lbrace. How do you understand both? Fact is that Knuth defined them in the base of TeX's math. We should at least stay compatible with that. And please do not also kill \infty. Why then not also change \equiv to \equivalent, \approx to \approximate etc, etc? If we start diverging in that way, we loose all ground. To me that sounds as a horror scenario. Who said anything about removing \infty, when you read between the lines I asked if we can add \infinity as long form for \infty. Good. I have absolute no objection to adding \infinity as an extra to \infty. However, I would plea for a process whereby can be determined which names to add. Will it for example be \infinity? Or do we choose \infinite? Otherwise it might lead to a plethora of nearly similar names for all those Knuth'ian short names. 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] lbrack?
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Hans van der Meer wrote: On 22 mrt 2010, at 16:37, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: Am 22.03.10 16:32, schrieb Hans van der Meer: Any thoughts? Either both or the long form only, memory is no longer a reason to create funny names like \infty (can we add \infinity please) I strongly disagree with the idea not defining the forms \lbrack and \lbrace. How do you understand both? Fact is that Knuth defined them in the base of TeX's math. We should at least stay compatible with that. And please do not also kill \infty. Why then not also change \equiv to \equivalent, \approx to \approximate etc, etc? If we start diverging in that way, we loose all ground. To me that sounds as a horror scenario. Who said anything about removing \infty, when you read between the lines I asked if we can add \infinity as long form for \infty. Good. I have absolute no objection to adding \infinity as an extra to \infty. However, I would plea for a process whereby can be determined which names to add. If you want to have a process for debating names, then I do not think that the list in char-def is every going to be 10% full. Even right now, we have not been able to add all the existing short names. As a start, I think that we should support all full names in mathml. Someone has already gone through the painful process of having a consensus on the symbol names, so lets just use that. We can worry about the more obscure symbols later. Will it for example be \infinity? Or do we choose \infinite? In this case, the choice is easy. The symbol has only one name: infinity. Mathml has an entity called infinity. I have not heard it being called infinite. Otherwise it might lead to a plethora of nearly similar names for all those Knuth'ian short names. I agree. But I doubt that having a debate about the full name of the symbol is going to help. Different fields use different names for the same symbol. Knuth short names are not perfect to being with. My personal favorites being \cap and \cup for \intersection and \union. 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] lbrack?
On 22-3-2010 16:32, Hans van der Meer wrote: On 22 mrt 2010, at 16:18, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: Am 22.03.10 16:00, schrieb Aditya Mahajan: For some reason it is defined as \lbracket in MkIV and undefined in MkII. Does anyone use \lbracket? If not, we can change it to \lbrack. Otherwise, we can also have both \lbrack and \lbracket defined. Any thoughts? Either both or the long form only, memory is no longer a reason to create funny names like \infty (can we add \infinity please) I strongly disagree with the idea not defining the forms \lbrack and \lbrace. Fact is that Knuth defined them in the base of TeX's math. We should at least stay compatible with that. And please do not also kill \infty. Why then not also change \equiv to \equivalent, \approx to \approximate etc, etc? If we start diverging in that way, we loose all ground. To me that sounds as a horror scenario. actually i'd like \mathequivalent as core command and then we can have \eq as shortcut (just as we have \eacute etc) - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | 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] lbrack?
On 22-3-2010 16:00, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Hans van der Meer wrote:
This program:
\setupbodyfont[lmodern]
\starttext
\type{$\lbrace$} $\lbrace$\crlf
\type{$\lbrack$} $\lbrack$\crlf
\stoptext
This does typeset a left brace but chokes on \lbrack.
I took my copy of the TeX Book and find \brack as one of the defined
delimiters in chapter 17. How come?
ConTeXt ver: 2010.03.20 22:59 MKIV fmt: 2010.3.21 int: english/english
fonts : preloading latin modern fonts
bodyfont : 12pt rm is loaded
language : language en is active
systems : begin file test.tex at line 2
! Undefined control sequence.
recently read \lbrack
l.4 \type{$\lbrack$} $\lbrack
$\crlf
?
For some reason it is defined as \lbracket in MkIV and undefined in
MkII. Does anyone use \lbracket? If not, we can change it to \lbrack.
Otherwise, we can also have both \lbrack and \lbracket defined.
Any thoughts?
i'll change it to lbrack + rbrack ... indeed we should use mml names in
char-def and then have a list of equivalents but it has a low priority
Hans
-
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | 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] lbrack?
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Hans Hagen wrote: On 22-3-2010 16:32, Hans van der Meer wrote: On 22 mrt 2010, at 16:18, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: Am 22.03.10 16:00, schrieb Aditya Mahajan: For some reason it is defined as \lbracket in MkIV and undefined in MkII. Does anyone use \lbracket? If not, we can change it to \lbrack. Otherwise, we can also have both \lbrack and \lbracket defined. Any thoughts? Either both or the long form only, memory is no longer a reason to create funny names like \infty (can we add \infinity please) I strongly disagree with the idea not defining the forms \lbrack and \lbrace. Fact is that Knuth defined them in the base of TeX's math. We should at least stay compatible with that. And please do not also kill \infty. Why then not also change \equiv to \equivalent, \approx to \approximate etc, etc? If we start diverging in that way, we loose all ground. To me that sounds as a horror scenario. actually i'd like \mathequivalent as core command and then we can have \eq as shortcut That sounds good. Do you want the shortcuts to be defined in char-def or someplace else? 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] lbrack?
On 22-3-2010 22:38, Aditya Mahajan wrote: That sounds good. Do you want the shortcuts to be defined in char-def or someplace else? let's make a list and then put the long ones in chardef and the short ones in a mkiv file - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | 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 ___
