On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Hans Hagen wrote:
> Aditya Mahajan wrote:
>>
>> I am simply trying to copy from amsmath definition.
>>
>
> better think context -)
>
> \unprotect
>
> \def\mtharrfactor{1}
> \def\mtharrextra {0}
>
> \def\domthxarr#1#2#3#4#5#6#7#8%
> {\begingroup
> \def\mtharrfactor{1}%
> \def\mtharrextra {0}%
> \processaction[#1] % will be sped up
> [ \v!none=>\def\mtharrfactor{0},
> \v!small=>\def\mtharrextra{10},
> \v!medium=>\def\mtharrextra{15},
> \v!big=>\def\mtharrextra{20},
> \v!normal=>,
> \v!default=>,
> \v!unknown=>\doifnumberelse{#1}{\def\mtharrextra{#1}}\donothing]%
> \mathsurround\zeropoint
> \muskip0=#4mu \muskip0=\mtharrfactor\muskip0 \advance\muskip0 \mtharrextra
> mu
> \muskip2=#5mu \muskip2=\mtharrfactor\muskip2 \advance\muskip2 \mtharrextra
> mu
> \setbox0\hbox{$\scriptstyle
> \if#20\else\mkern#2mu\fi
> \mkern\muskip0\relax
> #8\relax
> \mkern\muskip2\relax
> \if#30\else\mkern#3mu\fi
> $}%
> \setbox4\hbox{#6}%
> \dimen0\wd0
> \ifdim\wd4>\dimen0 \dimen0\wd4 \fi
> \setbox2\hbox{$\scriptstyle
> \if#20\else\mkern#2mu\fi
> \mkern\muskip0\relax
> #7\relax
> \mkern\muskip2\relax
> \if#30\else\mkern#3mu\fi
> $}%
> \ifdim\wd2>\dimen0 \dimen0\wd2 \fi
> \setbox4\hbox to \dimen0{#6}%
> \mathrel{\mathop{%
> \hbox to \dimen0{\hss\copy4\hss}}%
> \limits^{\box0}_{\box2}}
> \endgroup}
>
> % ams:
>
> \def\xrightarrow{\doifnextcharelse[\noxrightarrow\doxrightarrow}
> \def\xleftarrow {\doifnextcharelse[\noxleftarrow\doxleftarrow}
>
> \def\doxrightarrow{\dodoublegroupempty\dodoxrightarrow}
> \def\doxleftarrow {\dodoublegroupempty\dodoxleftarrow }
>
> \def\noxrightarrow[#1]{\dodoublegroupempty\dodoxrightarrow{#1}}
> \def\noxleftarrow [#1]{\dodoublegroupempty\dodoxleftarrow {#1}}
>
> \def\dodoxrightarrow#2#3{\mathrel{{\domthxarr{}0359\rightarrowfill{#1}{#2}}}}
> \def\dodoxleftarrow #2#3{\mathrel{{\domthxarr{}3095\leftarrowfill {#1}{#2}}}}
>
> % context:
>
> \def\xrightarrow {\dosingleempty\doxrightarrow}
> \def\xleftarrow {\dosingleempty\doxleftarrow}
>
> \def\doxrightarrow[#1]{\dotriplegroupempty\dodoxrightarrow{#1}}
> \def\doxleftarrow [#1]{\dotriplegroupempty\dodoxleftarrow {#1}}
>
> \def\dodoxrightarrow#1#2#3{\mathrel{{\domthxarr{#1}0359\rightarrowfill{#2}{#3}}}}
> \def\dodoxleftarrow #1#2#3{\mathrel{{\domthxarr{#1}3095\leftarrowfill
> {#2}{#3}}}}
>
> \starttext
>
> \startformula \xrightarrow{}{stuff on top}\stopformula
> \startformula \xrightarrow{stuff below}{}\stopformula
> \startformula \xrightarrow{stuff below}{stuff on top}\stopformula
>
> \startformula \xleftarrow [none]{stuff below}{stuff on top}\stopformula
> \startformula \xleftarrow [small]{stuff below}{stuff on top}\stopformula
> \startformula \xleftarrow [medium]{stuff below}{stuff on top}\stopformula
> \startformula \xleftarrow [big]{stuff below}{stuff on top}\stopformula
>
> \stoptext
This definitely looks better. Can there be a setting for
\setuparrowextension (or something) so that the default can be
changed.
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
> Perhaps it syntax should be identical to amsmath: no brackets
> and two required arguments.
But that is not the amsmath syntax. It has
\xrightarrow[below]{top} where the first argument is optional.
> It is what is expected anyway.
>
> \def\xrightarrow#1#2{\mathrel
> {{\domthxarr0359\rightarrowfill{#1}{#2}}}}
>
I agree that this makes more sense.
> I assume amsmath has a few others as well, for double arrows and such.
> Can you post those defs as well? Then we can move the whole definition
> into math-ext.tex for the new release
>
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Hans Hagen wrote:
> hm, this is not the context way, two equal kind of contents and then one
> of them in [], maybe
I agree. To me,
\xrightarrow[setting]{below}{top}
makes most sense. It is not same as ams syntax, but that does not
matter too much. Maybe there can be a switch to enable ams type of
syntax, but that will make things too messy, I guess.
>
> \def\xrightarrow{\doifnextcharelse[\noxrightarrow\doxrightarrow}
> \def\xleftarrow {\doifnextcharelse[\noxleftarrow\doxleftarrow}
>
> \def\doxrightarrow{\dodoublegroupempty\dodoxrightarrow}
> \def\doxleftarrow {\dodoublegroupempty\dodoxleftarrow }
>
> \def\noxrightarrow[#1]{\dodoublegroupempty\dodoxrightarrow{#1}}
> \def\noxleftarrow [#1]{\dodoublegroupempty\dodoxleftarrow {#1}}
>
> which accepts
>
> \xrightarrow{x}{y}
> \xrightarrow{x}
> \xrightarrow{}{y}
> \xrightarrow[x]{y}
>
> etc, actyally, we should then also accept
>
> \xrightarrow[x][y]
>
> but more interesting is to use the optional arg for tuning purposes
>
>
> \if0#1\else\mkern#1mu\fi
>
> test, does a \mkern0mu hurt?
I did not see any difference when I tested it. I do not know why that
is there.
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
> I assume amsmath has a few others as well, for double arrows and
> such. Can you post those defs as well? Then we can move the whole
> definition into math-ext.tex for the new release
These are the only ones defined in amsmath. However extarrows.sty
defines the following
\xlongequal (===)
\xLongleftarrow (<===)
(Perhaps a better name is \xLeftarrow and we can have
\xLeftarrow[medium] )
\xLongrightarrow (===>)
(Perhaps a better name is \xRightarrow?)
\xLongleftrightarrow (<=====>)
(again, \xLeftrightarrow[medium] )
\xLeftrightarrow ( <===> )
\xlongleftrightarrow (<------->)
(again \xleftrightarrow[medium] )
\xleftrightarrow (<---->)
\xlongleftarrow
\xlongrightarrow
(These two are there with \xrightarrow[medium])
The definitions in extarrows are
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@arrow}
\newcommand{\xlongequal}[2][]{%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
\newcommand{\xLongleftrightarrow}[2][]{%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
\newcommand{\xlongleftrightarrow}[2][]{%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\Leftarrow\Relbar\Rightarrow}
\newcommand{\xLeftrightarrow}[2][]{%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\leftarrow\relbar\rightarrow}
\newcommand{\xleftrightarrow}[2][]{%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\Longleftarrow\Relbar\Relbar}
\newcommand{\xLongleftarrow}[2][]{%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\Relbar\Relbar\Longrightarrow}
\newcommand{\xLongrightarrow}[2][]{%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\longleftarrow\relbar\relbar}
\newcommand{\xlongleftarrow}[2][]{%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\relbar\relbar\longrightarrow}
\newcommand{\xlongrightarrow}[2][]{%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do not think that change is syntax is that big a deal, as long as it
is documented (I will do that). Otherwise we will still be using latex
syntax here :)
Aditya
_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
