Aditya Mahajan wrote:
>
> Another one: Nath defines \stackrel and \underset. I think that these
> should go to the core
>
> \def\stackrel#1#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits^{#1}}}
>
> See the note below:
>
> \def\overset#1#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits^{#1}}}
> \def\underset#1#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits_{#1}}}
>
> amsmath.sty goes into a lot of pains to define overset and underset,
> basically to decide whether to use mathrel or mathbin in the above. Do
> we need such an elaborate definition? This is amsmath's definition:
Yes, I believe that is wise. Spacing around ords and bins and rels is
different, and \overset and \underset should not influence that spacing.
The \binrel@ macro is ugly, but the most efficient and robust way
of testing this is through trial typesetting. \binrel@ changes
the definition of \binrel@@ to be one of \mathbin, \mathrel, or
\relax, as needed.
So, better to put the ams definition in the core. Assuming I didn't
make any typos, it should look like this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
{\begingroup
\setbox0=\hbox
{\thinmuskip 0mu
\medmuskip -1mu
\thickmuskip -1mu
\setbox2=\hbox{$#1\mathsurround0pt$}%
\kern -wd2
${}#1{}\mathsurround0pt$}%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
{\endgroup
\let\noexpand\binrel@@
\ifdim\wd0<0pt
\mathbin
\else \ifdim\wd0>\z@
\mathrel
\else
\relax
\fi\fi }%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] }
Best, taco
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] mu
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@th$}\kern-\wd\tw@
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@@
> \ifdim\wdz@<\z@ \mathbin
> \else\ifdim\wdz@>\z@ \mathrel
> \else \relax\fi\fi}%
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> \binrel@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> \binrel@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Aditya
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-context mailing list
> dev-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-context
_______________________________________________
dev-context mailing list
dev-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-context
