It took me longer than I want to admit here to mentally parse the
example at the end of section 8.3.1 on \mathstyle, \mathchoice, and
grouping. In particular it took a while until I noticed that the b case
has no \bgroup ... \egroup. This may very well be because of temporary
stupidity on my side.
But nonetheless I recommend changing the example either so that the
mathchoices between \bgroup ... \egroup receive one more level of
indentation, or, even better, to change the example into something like:
\def\a#1{
\mathchoice
{\bf \scriptstyle (#1:d :\mathstyle)}
{\bf \scriptscriptstyle (#1:t :\mathstyle)}
{\bf \scriptscriptstyle (#1:s :\mathstyle)}
{\bf \scriptscriptstyle (#1:ss:\mathstyle)}}
[a:\mathstyle]\quad \bgroup\a x\egroup \quad
[b:\mathstyle]\quad \a y \quad
[c:\mathstyle]\quad \bgroup\a z\egroup \quad
[d:\mathstyle]
Apart from being shorter, that totally minimizes the effort required by
the reader to mentally parse and compare what is equal and what is
different in the example.
_______________________________________________
dev-context mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-context
