On Tuesday 18 December 2007 22:54, Jason Grout wrote:
> 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, I'm not sure from your post if you are aware of this, but this is
exactly the way it currently is coded for exactly the reasons you mention.
This was my design goal when I rewrote some latex'ing code a month ago.
x1 -> x_1
x_1 -> x_1
x_n -> x_n
xn -> \text{xn}
alpha1 -> \alpha_1
etc. (I omitted '{','}' for clutter reduction.)
So, I would summarize Robert and Jason's discussion as agreeing that the bug
is invalid?
--
Joel
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
