Hi Michaël, On 31/10/2012, at 1:39 AM, Michaël Cadilhac wrote:
>> Howdy, >> >> \vec{v}_1 ? > > Herb, > > Thanks, but of course, I'd like to avoid going through hundreds of pages (ok, > a script would be easy to write, but still...). Also, I'd like to keep the > semantics "\vec{T} is for a vector T", whether T=v or T=v_1. It's a pity that you chose to write you manuscripts this way. You can see how difficult it gets when you write a macro that represents just an abstract concept, without detailed thought for all the different ways it may be used. What I do for this kind of thing is: \newcommand{\TT}{\boldsymbol{T}} \newcommand{\vv}{\boldsymbol{v}} % \boldsymbol gives a bold-italic, rather than bold-upright then use it in the body material as: \TT or \TT_1 or \vv^{(1)}_2 etc. When reading your own source coding, you see `\TT' and think `vector T' or just `T' --- which are what you would say out loud if you were writing on a black/white-board while giving a lecture. The other advantage of doing it this way is that you do not need to change the body of your document when you choose, in future, to use a different kind of processor, creating a view of your document for a different format: HTML, XML, tagged-PDF, ePub, MathML, etc. You'll only need to adjust the macro definitions to add whatever is necessary for the required kind of enrichment. > > Thanks! > > M. Cheers Ross ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross Moore ross.mo...@mq.edu.au Mathematics Department office: E7A-419 Macquarie University tel: +61 (0)2 9850 8955 Sydney, Australia 2109 fax: +61 (0)2 9850 8114 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex