f



Why not automatic \left and \right ?

Hi folks,

I've been wondering why \left and \right aren't
assumed in the math mode.  I thought it would
be nice if \left and \right were automatic.
I mean, I'd like all opening parens "(" to be regarded
as "\left(" and closing parens as "\right)".  It is rare
(in my use) that automatic "\left(" or "\right)" would
do any harm.  When parens aren't paired, we could
still use \left or \right:

   \left( something tall \right.

If we ever need to suppress the stretching of
parens,  we could explicitly say something
like "\dontstretch(".

If \left and \right were automatic, at least we wouldn't
see so many instances of the stupid-looking fractions
in parens such as "(\frac{a}{b})" :-)   I saw this kind of
sloppy printing even in a published textbook.  Probably
the author didn't know TeX/LaTeX well.

Regards,
Ryo
0
Ryo
1/25/2010 4:55:38 AM
comp.text.tex 39027 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

18 Replies
758 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 31

Ryo wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I've been wondering why \left and \right aren't
> assumed in the math mode.  I thought it would
> be nice if \left and \right were automatic.
> I mean, I'd like all opening parens "(" to be regarded
> as "\left(" and closing parens as "\right)".  It is rare
> (in my use) that automatic "\left(" or "\right)" would
> do any harm.  When parens aren't paired, we could
> still use \left or \right:
> 
>    \left( something tall \right.
> 
> If we ever need to suppress the stretching of
> parens,  we could explicitly say something
> like "\dontstretch(".
> 
> If \left and \right were automatic, at least we wouldn't
> see so many instances of the stupid-looking fractions
> in parens such as "(\frac{a}{b})" :-)   I saw this kind of
> sloppy printing even in a published textbook.  Probably
> the author didn't know TeX/LaTeX well.
> 
> Regards,
> Ryo

In any case it has to be intelligent, the naive solution will be 
horrible in many cases

\left( \sum_{\substack{i,j\\i>j}} f_{ij} \right)

is just too excessive

and in many cases if \left/right constructions are using in the running 
text (i.e. inside $...$) they end up too big thus disturbing the line 
spacing.

You might want to have a look at the nath package



-- 

/daleif (remove RTFSIGNATURE from email address)

LaTeX FAQ:      http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
LaTeX book:     http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/    (in Danish)
Remember to post minimal examples, see URL below
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=minxampl
http://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html
0
Lars
1/25/2010 9:31:47 AM
On Jan 25, 4:31=A0am, Lars Madsen <dal...@RTFMSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> wrote:
> Ryo wrote:
> > Hi folks,
>
> > I've been wondering why \left and \right aren't
> > assumed in the math mode. =A0I thought it would
> > be nice if \left and \right were automatic.
> > I mean, I'd like all opening parens "(" to be regarded
> > as "\left(" and closing parens as "\right)". =A0It is rare
> > (in my use) that automatic "\left(" or "\right)" would
> > do any harm. =A0When parens aren't paired, we could
> > still use \left or \right:
>
> > =A0 =A0\left( something tall \right.
>
> > If we ever need to suppress the stretching of
> > parens, =A0we could explicitly say something
> > like "\dontstretch(".
>
> > If \left and \right were automatic, at least we wouldn't
> > see so many instances of the stupid-looking fractions
> > in parens such as "(\frac{a}{b})" :-) =A0 I saw this kind of
> > sloppy printing even in a published textbook. =A0Probably
> > the author didn't know TeX/LaTeX well.
>
> > Regards,
> > Ryo
>
> In any case it has to be intelligent, the naive solution will be
> horrible in many cases
>
> \left( \sum_{\substack{i,j\\i>j}} f_{ij} \right)
>
> is just too excessive
>
> and in many cases if \left/right constructions are using in the running
> text (i.e. inside $...$) they end up too big thus disturbing the line
> spacing.
>
> You might want to have a look at the nath package
>
> --
>
> /daleif (remove RTFSIGNATURE from email address)
>
> LaTeX FAQ: =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
> LaTeX book: =A0 =A0http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/=A0 =A0(in Danis=
h)
> Remember to post minimal examples, see URL belowhttp://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-=
bin/texfaq2html?label=3Dminxamplhttp://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html

I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
0
Joris
1/25/2010 1:02:15 PM
--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Joris <pinkse@gmail.com> writes:

> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!

Beware... it's addictive! :-)  You'll want to use

  \usepackage{nath} \delimgrowth=3D2

or similar to make the parenthesis grow automatically.

The package is unfortunately quite fragile, which means that you must be
extra careful with the order in which you load packages. In particular,
I've found out that nath must be loaded after tikz and listings, if you
use those.

I sometimes feel that it's the other packages fault since they all seem
to assume that "everybody" uses the AMS math packages... :-/

=2D-=20
Martin Geisler

VIFF (Virtual Ideal Functionality Framework) brings easy and efficient
SMPC (Secure Multiparty Computation) to Python. See: http://viff.dk/.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAktd8uYACgkQ/GWFsD4LxSMckgCcCDib9GAN7191HzV45XN9wkEY
jaMAn0L5BSqQ80RVAV0YFU8EHdN4PWy8
=usr4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--
0
Martin
1/25/2010 7:37:09 PM
On Jan 25, 2:37=A0pm, Martin Geisler <m...@lazybytes.net> wrote:
> Joris <pin...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
>
> Beware... it's addictive! :-) =A0You'll want to use
>
> =A0 \usepackage{nath} \delimgrowth=3D2
>
> or similar to make the parenthesis grow automatically.
>
> The package is unfortunately quite fragile, which means that you must be
> extra careful with the order in which you load packages. In particular,
> I've found out that nath must be loaded after tikz and listings, if you
> use those.
>
> I sometimes feel that it's the other packages fault since they all seem
> to assume that "everybody" uses the AMS math packages... :-/
>
> --
> Martin Geisler
>
> VIFF (Virtual Ideal Functionality Framework) brings easy and efficient
> SMPC (Secure Multiparty Computation) to Python. See:http://viff.dk/.
>
> =A0application_pgp-signature_part
> < 1KViewDownload

Thanks Martin!   I do use tikz (and amsmath) so that's very helpful!
Best, J.
0
Joris
1/25/2010 9:17:03 PM
Joris <pinkse@gmail.com> writes:

>> LaTeX FAQ: � � �http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
>> LaTeX book: � �http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/� �(in Danish)
>> Remember to post minimal examples, see URL belowhttp://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=minxamplhttp://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html
>
> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!

I also find this package useful but wonder why it hasn't received much
attention.

Leo
0
Leo
1/25/2010 10:45:55 PM
 Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:
>Joris <pinkse@gmail.com> writes:
>> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
>
>I also find this package useful but wonder why it hasn't received much
>attention.

this is the first time i've noticed it being suggested as a solution
to anything, which means it's never got above my horizon as something
to go in the faq.

whether being in the faq would add to its visibility i don't know, but
i wouldn't really be able to describe the problems it solves without
more help ... so unless someone steps in, it's not going to get the
chance of faq advertisement.
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
0
rf10
1/26/2010 11:28:39 AM
On Jan 26, 6:28=A0am, r...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:
> =A0Leo <sdl....@gmail.com> writes:
> >Joris <pin...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
>
> >I also find this package useful but wonder why it hasn't received much
> >attention.
>
> this is the first time i've noticed it being suggested as a solution
> to anything, which means it's never got above my horizon as something
> to go in the faq.
>
> whether being in the faq would add to its visibility i don't know, but
> i wouldn't really be able to describe the problems it solves without
> more help ... so unless someone steps in, it's not going to get the
> chance of faq advertisement.
> --
> Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

Well, what about something like:

I'm too lazy to manually adjust the size of (curly, rounded, etc.)
brackets in my documents.  Is there an automated way of doing this
that is more flexible and less cumbersome than using \left and \right
everywhere?
0
Joris
1/26/2010 3:04:06 PM
 Joris <pinkse@gmail.com> writes:
>On Jan 26, 6:28=A0am, r...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:
>> =A0Leo <sdl....@gmail.com> writes:
>> >Joris <pin...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
>>
>> >I also find this package useful but wonder why it hasn't received much
>> >attention.
>>
>> this is the first time i've noticed it being suggested as a solution
>> to anything, which means it's never got above my horizon as something
>> to go in the faq.
>>
>> whether being in the faq would add to its visibility i don't know, but
>> i wouldn't really be able to describe the problems it solves without
>> more help ... so unless someone steps in, it's not going to get the
>> chance of faq advertisement.
>
>Well, what about something like:
>
>I'm too lazy to manually adjust the size of (curly, rounded, etc.)
>brackets in my documents.  Is there an automated way of doing this
>that is more flexible and less cumbersome than using \left and \right
>everywhere?

the point is, i want to see people asking the question.  this thread
is the only one i remember which has been answered "nath".  since i've
been watching c.t.t (and texhax) for the faq since 1994, it looks as
if there's a conspiracy of silence about nath, or it doesn't actually
solve anything much.

since i (no longer a practising mathematician) have never encountered
the need for nath myself, i need more than a proforma question like
that: i want to distill discussion and so on, so that i understand
what i'm writing about.
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
0
rf10
1/26/2010 4:51:43 PM
Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>  Joris <pinkse@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Jan 26, 6:28=A0am, r...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:
>>> =A0Leo <sdl....@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Joris <pin...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
>>>> I also find this package useful but wonder why it hasn't received much
>>>> attention.
>>> this is the first time i've noticed it being suggested as a solution
>>> to anything, which means it's never got above my horizon as something
>>> to go in the faq.
>>>
>>> whether being in the faq would add to its visibility i don't know, but
>>> i wouldn't really be able to describe the problems it solves without
>>> more help ... so unless someone steps in, it's not going to get the
>>> chance of faq advertisement.
>> Well, what about something like:
>>
>> I'm too lazy to manually adjust the size of (curly, rounded, etc.)
>> brackets in my documents.  Is there an automated way of doing this
>> that is more flexible and less cumbersome than using \left and \right
>> everywhere?
> 
> the point is, i want to see people asking the question.  this thread
> is the only one i remember which has been answered "nath".  since i've
> been watching c.t.t (and texhax) for the faq since 1994, it looks as
> if there's a conspiracy of silence about nath, or it doesn't actually
> solve anything much.
> 
> since i (no longer a practising mathematician) have never encountered
> the need for nath myself, i need more than a proforma question like
> that: i want to distill discussion and so on, so that i understand
> what i'm writing about.


At one point I think Morten H\o gholm mentioned that this sort of auto 
scaling might be added to breqn (everything else is active so why not), 
but wether it ever will be is unanswered.

Where I work we had a number of people using it. But then they graduated...

I don't mention nath in my LaTeX book, so that might explain a few 
things at least in DK.

The syntax is very different, based on $$...$$ and many people (myself 
included) like the \begin/end syntax better, and this is what we promote.

/daleif


0
Lars
1/26/2010 5:01:25 PM
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:45:55 +0000, Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> wrote:

>Joris <pinkse@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> LaTeX FAQ: � � �http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
>>> LaTeX book: � �http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/� �(in Danish)
>>> Remember to post minimal examples, see URL belowhttp://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=minxamplhttp://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html
>>
>> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
>
>I also find this package useful but wonder why it hasn't received much
>attention.

See the thread misnamed "Lucida and Nath incompatibility"
(there is no actual incompatibility). The current(?) 
version of nath (it says "Nath as of 21 March 2003") has 
a bug with respect to some arrows.

The nath package is rather complex and hard to understand.
It also makes demands on how one can type math commands, 
but is somewhat unclear on what those demands are, exactly.

Those are the negatives. On the plus(?) side it makes 
(almost) all delimiters grow automatically and makes 
(almost) all arrows automatically extensible. Personally, 
I don't need those features very often and don't find 
them worth the extra hassle. This may be why it doesn't 
receive as much attention as amsmath. 

Automatic growth of delimiters can produce wrong results.
It surprises me that the (automatically produced) display 
at the bottom of page 5 of nathguide.pdf is considered a 
good result. To me it cries out to be rewritten in an
exceedingly obvious way that allows normal TeX practice
to get it right and look a whole lot better.

For me, amsmath is most useful for its display environments.
Nath's seem somewhat limited.


Dan

[P.S. While \to is standard for \rightarrow, I find nath's 
use of \ot for \leftarrow and \otto for \leftrightarrow 
to be just silly.]
To reply by email, change LookInSig to luecking
0
Dan
1/26/2010 6:26:08 PM
On Jan 26, 1:26=A0pm, Dan Luecking <LookIn...@uark.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:45:55 +0000, Leo <sdl....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Joris <pin...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >>> LaTeX FAQ: =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
> >>> LaTeX book: =A0 =A0http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/=A0=A0(in Da=
nish)
> >>> Remember to post minimal examples, see URL belowhttp://www.tex.ac.uk/=
cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=3Dminxamplhttp://www.min...
>
> >> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
>
> >I also find this package useful but wonder why it hasn't received much
> >attention.
>
> See the thread misnamed "Lucida and Nath incompatibility"
> (there is no actual incompatibility). The current(?)
> version of nath (it says "Nath as of 21 March 2003") has
> a bug with respect to some arrows.
>
> The nath package is rather complex and hard to understand.
> It also makes demands on how one can type math commands,
> but is somewhat unclear on what those demands are, exactly.
>
> Those are the negatives. On the plus(?) side it makes
> (almost) all delimiters grow automatically and makes
> (almost) all arrows automatically extensible. Personally,
> I don't need those features very often and don't find
> them worth the extra hassle. This may be why it doesn't
> receive as much attention as amsmath.
>
> Automatic growth of delimiters can produce wrong results.
> It surprises me that the (automatically produced) display
> at the bottom of page 5 of nathguide.pdf is considered a
> good result. To me it cries out to be rewritten in an
> exceedingly obvious way that allows normal TeX practice
> to get it right and look a whole lot better.
>
> For me, amsmath is most useful for its display environments.
> Nath's seem somewhat limited.
>
> Dan
>
> [P.S. While \to is standard for \rightarrow, I find nath's
> use of \ot for \leftarrow and \otto for \leftrightarrow
> to be just silly.]
> To reply by email, change LookInSig to luecking


ah.  I had not realized nath was an alternative to amsmath.   My
problem is that some of my students using latex are sloppy with their
brackets and their sizes.  I'd prefer them to concentrate on the non-
typographical aspects of their theses, so anything that fixes their
brackets is a bonus.

0
Joris
1/26/2010 6:31:19 PM
rf10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:

>  Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:
>>Joris <pinkse@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
>>
>>I also find this package useful but wonder why it hasn't received much
>>attention.
>
> this is the first time i've noticed it being suggested as a solution
> to anything, which means it's never got above my horizon as something
> to go in the faq.
>
> whether being in the faq would add to its visibility i don't know, but
> i wouldn't really be able to describe the problems it solves without
> more help ... so unless someone steps in, it's not going to get the
> chance of faq advertisement.

I think you should only put things in the FAQs that really occur
frequently.  I've encountered the nath package already a few years ago,
and I'd say that the causes it makes are just a bit too drastic for the
average user.  There has recently been a thread related to nath [1] on
LaTeX Community (which, BTW, might be a valuable source for the FAQ,
too, since beginners usually don't use newsgroups or mailing lists), and
I think in that case it is better to fake one of the feature it provides
(double and triple brackets) than to use the package itself, because it
requires you to change the way you input math dramatically.  Nath seems
to be kind of half way between presentation markup and content markup,
and I think this is a bit confusing for many users.  In mathematical
typesetting, notation and semantics are just much more closely tied
together than in text typesetting.  Also nath is a quite isolated system
that doesn't work together with other packages: You have to choose
between all or nothing.  On the contrary, amsmath, mathtools and similar
packages don't try to establish totally new principles of math
typesetting, but rather add features that are sought after by users
without breaking backwards compatibility.

[1] http://www.latex-community.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=7512

-- 
Change “LookInSig” to “tcalveu” to answer by mail.
0
Philipp
1/26/2010 6:59:09 PM
> 
> ah.  I had not realized nath was an alternative to amsmath.   My
> problem is that some of my students using latex are sloppy with their
> brackets and their sizes.  I'd prefer them to concentrate on the non-
> typographical aspects of their theses, so anything that fixes their
> brackets is a bonus.
> 

I would rather say that they should make their texts understandable to 
others. In that process choosing the optimal delimiters and their sizes 
are an important point among others.

I would say that excessive use of \left...\right is just as bad as no 
scaling at all.

Also it seems to be that the recommondation to use [{( as delimiters is 
lost on a lot of people. Most just use (, thus one may meet expressions 
like \left(\biggl(\Bigl(...\Bigr)...\biggr)^2 ... \right)

/daleif
0
Lars
1/26/2010 7:02:24 PM
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

rf10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:

> the point is, i want to see people asking the question. this thread is
> the only one i remember which has been answered "nath". since i've
> been watching c.t.t (and texhax) for the faq since 1994, it looks as
> if there's a conspiracy of silence about nath, or it doesn't actually
> solve anything much.

I think the point is that amsmath dominates the field completely --
everybody assumes that there is no other way to typeset math in LaTeX.
So everybody keeps repeating the advice to use it and people end up
thinking that \left(...\right) is just the way it has to be :-)

I've been using it for several years, I think it was Lars Madsen who
mentioned it at a TeX User Group meeting at the University of Aarhus (hi
Lars!). My office mate is also a big fan of it -- we always curse when
we can't use it because we're writing a paper with someone else who only
know amsmath :-)

> since i (no longer a practising mathematician) have never encountered
> the need for nath myself, i need more than a proforma question like
> that: i want to distill discussion and so on, so that i understand
> what i'm writing about.

The Nath guide is quite short, and I think it does a good job at
explaining its features:

  http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/nath/nathguide.pdf

I use these features the most:

* automatic scaling of brackets: this is just plain nice :-)

* new math operators with `: $`foo(x)$ has "foo" typeset like \sin.

* line breaks are allowed in sub and super scripts: $\sum_{x \\ y} works
  out of the box.

* formatting using \wall:

  $$
  (x + y)^2 \wall=3D (x + y) \cdot (x + y) \\
                 =3D x^2 + y^2 + 2xy
  \return
  $$

  This makes the equal-signs line up -- walls can be nested.

* automatic formatting of fractions: $\frac x y$ becomes "x/y" in inline
  math mode, $\frac 1 2$ becomes "=BD".

=2D-=20
Martin Geisler

VIFF (Virtual Ideal Functionality Framework) brings easy and efficient
SMPC (Secure Multiparty Computation) to Python. See: http://viff.dk/.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAktfRlQACgkQ/GWFsD4LxSNDOACdGhZw3b/nmaWi6urSM7Zg3GBD
0UoAn0cwEMm63q4EvkUMxNdCFcZqfn5w
=BbhA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--
0
Martin
1/26/2010 7:45:24 PM
On Jan 26, 2:02=A0pm, Lars Madsen <dal...@imf.au.dk> wrote:
> > ah. =A0I had not realized nath was an alternative to amsmath. =A0 My
> > problem is that some of my students using latex are sloppy with their
> > brackets and their sizes. =A0I'd prefer them to concentrate on the non-
> > typographical aspects of their theses, so anything that fixes their
> > brackets is a bonus.
>
> I would rather say that they should make their texts understandable to
> others. In that process choosing the optimal delimiters and their sizes
> are an important point among others.

True, and that's part of it.  But the rate of improvement in
comprehensibility as a result of efforts in other areas (structuring
arguments, grammar, etc.) tends to be greater.

>
> I would say that excessive use of \left...\right is just as bad as no
> scaling at all.
>
> Also it seems to be that the recommondation to use [{( as delimiters is
> lost on a lot of people. Most just use (, thus one may meet expressions
> like \left(\biggl(\Bigl(...\Bigr)...\biggr)^2 ... \right)
>
> /daleif

True too (but not on me ;-)).

J.


0
Joris
1/26/2010 8:02:56 PM
 Philipp Stephani <LookInSig@arcor.de> writes:
>rf10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
>>  Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:
>>>Joris <pinkse@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I'd never heard of the nath package; pretty neat!
>>>
>>>I also find this package useful but wonder why it hasn't received much
>>>attention.
>>
>> this is the first time i've noticed it being suggested as a solution
>> to anything, which means it's never got above my horizon as something
>> to go in the faq.
>>
>> whether being in the faq would add to its visibility i don't know, but
>> i wouldn't really be able to describe the problems it solves without
>> more help ... so unless someone steps in, it's not going to get the
>> chance of faq advertisement.
>
>I think you should only put things in the FAQs that really occur
>frequently.

no argument, though when we originally set it up, we concocted a
series of questions about "bits and pieces of tex", largely to provide
a framework.

>I've encountered the nath package already a few years ago,
>and I'd say that the causes it makes are just a bit too drastic for the
>average user.

i encountered it (in a sense) when it first appeared on the archive.
i read the doc then, and didn't understand...  something that's not
immediately understandable, i tend to drop, unless it's relevant to my
actual work.  :-(

>There has recently been a thread related to nath [1] on
>LaTeX Community (which, BTW, might be a valuable source for the FAQ,
>too, since beginners usually don't use newsgroups or mailing lists),

indeed.  i'm actually signed up there, with that aim in mind, but i
keep forgetting to go there.  unfortunately, i have work to do, too.
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
0
rf10
1/26/2010 9:02:25 PM
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "MG" =3D=3D Martin Geisler <mg@lazybytes.net> writes:
>>>>> "RF" =3D=3D rf10@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:

 RF> the point is, i want to see people asking the question. this thread
 RF> is the only one i remember which has been answered "nath". since
 RF> i've been watching c.t.t (and texhax) for the faq since 1994, it
 RF> looks as if there's a conspiracy of silence about nath, or it
 RF> doesn't actually solve anything much.

 MG> I think the point is that amsmath dominates the field completely --
 MG> everybody assumes that there is no other way to typeset math in
 MG> LaTeX.  So everybody keeps repeating the advice to use it and
 MG> people end up thinking that \left(...\right) is just the way it has
 MG> to be :-)

[...]

 MG> http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/nath/nathguide.pdf

 MG> I use these features the most:

 MG> * automatic scaling of brackets: this is just plain nice :-)

 MG> * new math operators with `: $`foo(x)$ has "foo" typeset like \sin.

 MG> * line breaks are allowed in sub and super scripts: $\sum_{x \\ y}
 MG> works out of the box.

 MG> * formatting using \wall:

 MG> $$ (x + y)^2 \wall=3D (x + y) \cdot (x + y) \\ =3D x^2 + y^2 + 2xy
 MG> \return $$

 MG> This makes the equal-signs line up -- walls can be nested.

 MG> * automatic formatting of fractions: $\frac x y$ becomes "x/y" in
 MG> inline math mode, $\frac 1 2$ becomes "=C2=BD".

	Nice.

	Well, it seems that the features above make the TeX syntax (or,
	rather, parsing) even more, for a lack of a better word,
	=E2=80=9Cfancyful=E2=80=9D.  Do I understand it correctly that it will mea=
n even
	more problems for various TeX-without-TeX tools, such as, say,
	TeX4ht, and their respective developers?

=2D --=20
FSF associate member #7257
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAktgTTMACgkQMBO2oCMOM0oDQACgkAdokkR/1n4LKLQKMb8PuK1a
Xw8An2QfLMRPsCFhZHx4CEnSazN/UZEm
=3DCsZU
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
ivan35 (40)
1/27/2010 2:26:57 PM
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ivan Shmakov <ivan@main.uusia.org> writes:

>>>>>> "MG" =3D=3D Martin Geisler <mg@lazybytes.net> writes:
>
>  MG> http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/nath/nathguide.=
pdf
>
>  MG> I use these features the most:
>
>  MG> * automatic scaling of brackets: this is just plain nice :-)
>
>  MG> * new math operators with `: $`foo(x)$ has "foo" typeset like \sin.
>
>  MG> * line breaks are allowed in sub and super scripts: $\sum_{x \\ y}
>  MG> works out of the box.
>
>  MG> * formatting using \wall:
>
>  MG> $$ (x + y)^2 \wall=3D (x + y) \cdot (x + y) \\ =3D x^2 + y^2 + 2xy
>  MG> \return $$
>
>  MG> This makes the equal-signs line up -- walls can be nested.
>
>  MG> * automatic formatting of fractions: $\frac x y$ becomes "x/y" in
>  MG> inline math mode, $\frac 1 2$ becomes "=BD".
>
> Nice.
>
> Well, it seems that the features above make the TeX syntax (or,
> rather, parsing) even more, for a lack of a better word, fancyful .

Heh, you can call it that. Getting rid of \left( and \right) is probably
the most user-visible change, but the \wall-\return construct is very
nice too and I think it is easier (more light-weight) to use than lots
of \begin{split}-\end{split} constructs (it's been a long while since
I've used AMS math, but I think they should be compared to the split
enviroment).

> Do I understand it correctly that it will mean even more problems for
> various TeX-without-TeX tools, such as, say, TeX4ht, and their
> respective developers?

I don't know, I'm not using TeX4ht at the moment.

=2D-=20
Martin Geisler

VIFF (Virtual Ideal Functionality Framework) brings easy and efficient
SMPC (Secure Multiparty Computation) to Python. See: http://viff.dk/.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAktiHJIACgkQ/GWFsD4LxSOMdgCcCLEMMJ8jhWRXGW4CHTkAaGrt
Hp0An2olus6A3umg4tcSUQn6VMKf+kMY
=1xvy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--
0
mg51 (2)
1/28/2010 11:24:02 PM
Reply: