Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:32 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> I would say that latexing x_1 as x_1 is a bug, it should be x\_1
>>> (probably, haven't looked at what the implications would be
>>> elsewhere).
>>>
>> How would you propose handling the case "x subscript n" (i.e., $x_n$)?
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question, but to be more precise,
> here's what I'm suggesting:
>
> sage: latex(var('x1'))
> x_{1}
> sage: latex(var('x_1'))
> x\_{1}
Sorry for not being clear. I meant to ask how you would propose getting
an output latex of $x_n$. In other words, I would like to explicitly
tell latex that there is a subscript.
Currently:
sage: latex(var('xn'))
\mbox{xn}
sage: latex(var('x_n'))
x_{n}
How would you propose getting an output like the second command? I
guess one possibility is that:
sage: latex(var('variable123')) # where 123 could be any number
variable_{123}
but
sage: latex(var('variable_n'))
variable_{n}
-Jason
-Jason
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
