I'm working at a university in Brazil, we are writing books for on-line
education, computer science.
I have some math authors that use soo much latexmath that they are doing it
like this:
Note que ao efetuar o somatório *latexmath:[*$\sum\limits_{j=0}^{i} a_{j}\times
\beta^{j}$ o
resultado já é um número decimal. Portanto,
da representação acima, dada uma base $\beta\geq 2$, podemos
converter qualquer número expresso nesta base para sua representação
na base $10$*]*.
Nestes exemplos, vemos intuitivamente que podemos obter uma forma para
converter um número da base binária para a base decimal. Assim, a
teoria estabelece que, dado um número na base *latexmath:[*$2$: $(a_{i}
a_{i-1} \ldots a_2 a_1 a_0)_{2}$ a sua representação na base $10$,
denotada por $b_0$*]*, é obtida da seguinte forma:
At the first time they need to use latexmath, they live it open until the
end of the paragraph. Of course they looses the asciidoc way of doing, but
they think it's better then have to write latexmath:[$$] all the time.
My point is that asciidoc is great for programing books, if we start a
paragraph with space, we have a literal block, it's so easy! The
`monospace` too.
The language itself should be easy for writing math books too. I agree with
you lex, about the $$.
> A macro that does this can certainly be defined for both HTML and Docbook
backends. Could just as well use the @@ as the delimiter.
Thanks, I will give it a try. I was starting to think about create a macro
with the name "x" and use the latexmath inline macro including the $$:
[latexmath-inlinemacro]
<inlineequation>
<alt><![CDATA[{passtext}]]></alt>
...
[x-inlinemacro]
<inlineequation>
<alt><![CDATA[*$*{passtext}*$*]]></alt>
...
Instead of latexmath:[$ a $], it would be x:[a].
Dan, math:[a] is good, but it should be as easy as @@possible@@. =)
Em quarta-feira, 28 de maio de 2014 23h43min24s UTC-3, Lex Trotman escreveu:
>
> On 29 May 2014 12:13, Dan Allen <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Lex Trotman
> > <[email protected]<javascript:>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 29 May 2014 07:06, Dan Allen <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
> >> > Eduardo,
> >> >
> >> > The explicit use of the latexmath inline macro isn't technically
> >> > necessary.
> >> > You should just be able to type the escaped sequence for MathJax and
> it
> >> > will
> >> > pick up the math. Thus, there would be no reason to introduce another
> >> > set of
> >> > delimiters to use for shorthand.
> >>
> >> Eduardo is also using the PDF toolchains as well as mathjax, so it
> >> needs to be wrapped in <*equation> for them. So a simple passthrough
> >> won't work.
> >
> >
> > It's still possible to create a custom inline macro that maps to the
> math
> > delimiters so the appropriate output can be created in other backends.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Asciidoctor simplifies this even further by allowing you to associate
> >> > the
> >> > math inline macro with either latexmath or asciimath. Here's an
> example:
> >> >
> >> > :math: latexmath
> >> >
> >> > math:[R_x = 10.0 \times \sin(R_\phi)]
> >>
> >> A macro that does this can certainly be defined for both HTML and
> >> Docbook backends. Could just as well use the @@ as the delimiter.
> >
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Notice that you don't need the delimiters around the equation inside
> the
> >> > macro body. That's because Asciidoctor adds them automatically.
> AsciiDoc
> >> > Python could do the same thing. There's absolutely no reason AsciiDoc
> >> > Python
> >> > should be requiring you to include the math delimiters inside the
> macro
> >> > body.
> >> >
> >> > Instead of using the math inline macro, you can just use the escaped
> >> > round
> >> > brackets as delimiters:
> >> >
> >> > \(R_x = 10.0 \times \sin(R_\phi)\)
> >>
> >> I'm wary about escaped parens as delimeters, are you *sure* they can't
> >> occur elsewhere? At least @@ is likely to be more rare (except for
> >> the guy documenting roff of course :)
> >
> >
> > That's just the default for MathJax. It's possible to change the MathJax
> > configuration to look for different delimiters, if backlash round
> brackets
> > turn out to be a problem. I can't think of a single document that ever
> used
> > escaped round brackets, so it's likely an edge case situation.
>
> Ok, for some reason I thought $$ was the default, hence my comment
> below that its a pity its taken. No problem.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The downside of this shorthand is that it's not treated as
> passthrough
> >> > content, so you run the risk of getting unwanted substitutions.
> >> > Personally,
> >> > I find the math inline macro without the math delimiters around the
> >> > equation
> >> > (first example above) to be a reasonable compromise.
> >>
> >> In asciidoc you can define limit substitution in macros by capturing
> >> content in (?P<passtext>pattern) instead of as attributes see
> >> http://asciidoc.org/userguide.html#_macro_definitions.
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > wdyt?
> >> >
> >> > Although Asciidoctor deviates from the AsciiDoc Python behavior, I
> don't
> >> > see
> >> > any reason why AsciiDoc Python can't be enhanced to align with this
> >> > enhancement.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I guess latexmath:[] was invented for documents with occasional maths
> >> in it. A more compact form would be good for more math heavy
> >> documents. Pity the $$ is already used as a passthrough.
> >> Unfortunately changing that to an <equation> now is going to break
> >> documents that use it. With Python Asciidoc Eduardo should be able to
> >> define his own macros and experiment with the most appropriate
> >> delimiters.
> >
> >
> > Fortunately AsciiDoc Python leaves a lot of options open. If I were
> > providing professional advice to someone, I would like encourage the use
> of
> > the math:[] inline macro and have the backend wrap the content
> appropriately
> > (delimiters for MathJax, <equation> for DocBook, etc).
> >
> >
> > math:[R_x = 10.0 \times \sin(R_\phi)]
> >
> > If "math" is too long, another alternative is "eq" for equation.
> >
> > eq:[R_x = 10.0 \times \sin(R_\phi)]
>
> Yes this is only one character more than the @@equation@@ syntax.
>
> Either as a shortened form of latexmath would be fine.
>
> Cheers
> Lex
>
>
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > --
> > Dan Allen | http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > "asciidoc" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an
> > email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>.
>
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
