There is a bug(?) with
\starttext
\bTABLE
\bTR
\bTD[orientation=90]{first line\crlf second line}\eTD
\bTD{first line\crlf second line}\eTD
\eTR
\eTABLE
\stoptext
The second cell is partially written over the first cell.
How can I say: Don't do that :-)
Am 10.04.2014 um 12:10 schrieb jahei...@gmx.de:
There is a bug(?) with
\starttext
\bTABLE
\bTR
\bTD[orientation=90]{first line\crlf second line}\eTD
\bTD{first line\crlf second line}\eTD
\eTR
\eTABLE
\stoptext
The second cell is partially written over the first cell.
How can I
Try 1:
\starttext
\section{Hello}\index{Hello}
\page
\index{world}world
\page
\completeindex
\stoptext
Result 1:
hello 2 - must be 1!
world 2
Try 2:
\starttext
\section{Hello}\index{Hello}
some text - putting some text here
\page
\index{world}world
\page
\completeindex
\stoptext
Result 2:
On 04/09/2014 09:33 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
One possibility is to add:
\appendtoks \let\footnote \gobbleoneargument \to \everysimplifycommands
to your style.
Perhaps this should be added to the definition of definenote.
Hmm...
I just noticed that the gradient operator (\triangledown) ends up too
low when using Palatino:
\setupbodyfont[palatino]
\starttext
$\triangledown T$
\stoptext
It seems about 3pt too low. Without the \setupbodyfont[palatino], the
placement is fine.
(tested with 2013.05.28 and 2014.03.27 betas)
I think you are using the wrong symbol. Or at least I would prefer \nabla as
gradient operator.
Jannik
Am 10.04.2014 um 23:49 schrieb Sanjoy Mahajan san...@mit.edu:
I just noticed that the gradient operator (\triangledown) ends up too
low when using Palatino:
\setupbodyfont[palatino]
Jannik,
You are right. \nabla looks much nicer and is placed correctly. (I
still think the \triangledown placement is slightly off.)
My environment files from MkII days have \def\nabla{\triangledown}, so I
never tried the true \nabla until your suggestion.
Thank you.
-Sanjoy
Jannik Voges
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
Jannik,
You are right. \nabla looks much nicer and is placed correctly. (I
still think the \triangledown placement is slightly off.)
My environment files from MkII days have \def\nabla{\triangledown}, so I
never tried the true \nabla until your
I cannot say whether the wrong placement is due to the wrong font
metrics or the wrong mapping (mathop vs mathord) by ConTeXt.
I tried '\triangle T' (often used as the Laplacian operator, instead of
writing it out as \nabla^2). That one comes out fine, even though
\triangledown does not. But
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
I cannot say whether the wrong placement is due to the wrong font
metrics or the wrong mapping (mathop vs mathord) by ConTeXt.
I tried '\triangle T' (often used as the Laplacian operator, instead of
writing it out as \nabla^2). That one comes out
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
I cannot say whether the wrong placement is due to the wrong font
metrics or the wrong mapping (mathop vs mathord) by ConTeXt.
I tried '\triangle T' (often used as the Laplacian operator, instead of
Instead of \triangle you should use \Delta for the laplacian (as you
should use \nabla for the gradient).
Mikael
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Sanjoy Mahajan san...@mit.edu wrote:
I cannot say whether the wrong placement is due to the wrong font
metrics or the wrong mapping (mathop vs
12 matches
Mail list logo
