can't be that difficult to implement a suitable \superscript macro.
Indeed.
I committed the changes to texinfo.tex (and the documentation) so that
@sub/@sup stay in math mode inside @math, and do a textual
sub/superscript outside @math.
The remaining complication (unsolved) is if someone
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:01:09PM +, Karl Berry wrote:
Is your proposal really just working around makeinfo not recognizing ^
and _ in math in the first place? It seems to me that might be
implementable without too much trouble -- the parsing could maybe be
treated like the accent
On 12/01/2014 04:31 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
The remaining question would be about @sup/@sub outside
of math -- go into math by default, or stay in text? I would be
inclined toward the latter (which is also what texi2any does now).
I think the latter makes most sense: it seems more useful and
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Per Bothner p...@bothner.com wrote:
Supposed I want to write a formula like e=mc^2 in TexInfo.
In TeX I'd like it to be typeset $e = mc^2$.
In HTML I'd like it to be typeset span class=mathe =
mcsup2/sup/span
or similar - i.e. I want to use sup2/sup. Likewise
On 11/28/2014 11:01 AM, Karl Berry wrote:
Sure, sub/superscripts are most commonly used in math. Thus @math, as
in @math{e=mc^2}. I never expected anything else to be used, certainly
not clunky macros. This is why @math was created in the first place.
Is your proposal really just working
I want some sane way of writing i^2 and R^4 so I get tolerably-looking
expressions with superscripts in both TeX andDocBook/HTML.
Sure.
First, with non-letter superscripts (numbers, +, etc.), you're fine with
the present @sup inside math, regardless of whether @sub/@sup mean text
inside
Per and all,
In TeX inside @math: ^{TEXT}
In TeX otherwise: use a macro ...
I'm thinking that TeX, either inside or outside @math, should treat TEXT
as text, not math. That is, if you simply want to produce the math
expression a-to-the-power-of-b, you'd write @math{a^b}, rather than
On 11/27/2014 04:13 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
Per and all,
In TeX inside @math: ^{TEXT}
In TeX otherwise: use a macro ...
I'm thinking that TeX, either inside or outside @math, should treat TEXT
as text, not math. That is, if you simply want to produce the math
expression
I can add these to texinfo.tex and texinfo.texi, etc., easily enough.
Do you have time to add it to makeinfo?
Yes.
Great. I will work on it next week.
For HTML cross manual I propose doing the same as for style
commands and key and kbd, that is replace by the content.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 07:08:48PM +0100, Dumas Patrice wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:07:04PM +, Karl Berry wrote:
Maybe I would favor using x^{2}y in textual context too, since there is
no good solution, and it is simpler to implement and explain ...
Ok by me. Doing the
Maybe I would favor using x^{2}y in textual context too, since there is
no good solution, and it is simpler to implement and explain ...
Ok by me. Doing the simple way (always add braces) first seems
reasonable; if it turns out that the feature gets used enough and people
really don't
Hi Per,
Are real subcripts/superscripts planned?
There has been no specific plan to date, for this or any of the many
other things lacking in Texinfo. Your message is very helpful in that
regard.
(2) Introduce new @sub and @sup commands (or @subscript/@superscript
@sub and @sup sound
Currently texinfo only supports subscripts and superscripts in @math,
which are only effective in tex mode. This is unfortunate since both
HTML and DocBook support them. Are real subcripts/superscripts planned?
I can see two ways to do it:
(1) Parse @math to extract the ^ and _ characters and
13 matches
Mail list logo
