Re: [NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-07 Thread Alan BRASLAU
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:03:35 +0200 Hans Hagen wrote: > > I have been massacred on this list for ever preferring \over to > > \frac... > > and because of the many {} you then need you get these mismatch > errors ... but, you can make > >

Re: [NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-07 Thread Mikael P. Sundqvist
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Hans Hagen wrote: > On 6/7/2017 4:50 PM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Mikael P. Sundqvist >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> this might be a matter of taste. >>> >>> look at the output of (attached).

Re: [NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-07 Thread Hans Hagen
On 6/7/2017 4:50 PM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote: Hi, this might be a matter of taste. look at the output of (attached). In my opinion the first square root is to "high", while it looks better on the second line.

Re: [NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-07 Thread Hans Hagen
On 6/7/2017 5:12 PM, Otared Kavian wrote: Hi, Indeed using \frac yields a weird result in the example sent by Mikael. Compare the output of the three formulas below, with or without \setupmathradical[sqrt][alternative=default]. The results are correct using \over in both cases, while the

Re: [NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-07 Thread Hans Hagen
On 6/7/2017 5:45 PM, Alan BRASLAU wrote: On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:12:44 +0200 Otared Kavian wrote: The results are correct using \over in both cases, while the first one is weird when using \frac and I have been massacred on this list for ever preferring \over to \frac...

Re: [NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-07 Thread Meer, Hans van der
> On 7 Jun 2017, at 17:45, Alan BRASLAU wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:12:44 +0200 > Otared Kavian wrote: > >> The results are correct using \over in both cases, while the first >> one is weird when using \frac and > > I have been massacred on this

Re: [NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-07 Thread Alan BRASLAU
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:12:44 +0200 Otared Kavian wrote: > The results are correct using \over in both cases, while the first > one is weird when using \frac and I have been massacred on this list for ever preferring \over to \frac...

Re: [NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-07 Thread Otared Kavian
Hi, Indeed using \frac yields a weird result in the example sent by Mikael. Compare the output of the three formulas below, with or without \setupmathradical[sqrt][alternative=default]. The results are correct using \over in both cases, while the first one is weird when using \frac and

Re: [NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-07 Thread Mikael P. Sundqvist
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote: > Hi, > > this might be a matter of taste. > > look at the output of (attached). In my opinion the first square root > is to "high", while it looks better on the second line. From > setup-en.pdf it looks like the

[NTG-context] mathradical defaults to "normal", should it perhaps be "default"?

2017-06-05 Thread Mikael P. Sundqvist
Hi, this might be a matter of taste. look at the output of (attached). In my opinion the first square root is to "high", while it looks better on the second line. From setup-en.pdf it looks like the default of \setupmathradical is set to normal (and not default). I don't understand what normal