On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 22-3-2010 16:32, Hans van der Meer wrote:
On 22 mrt 2010, at 16:18, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Am 22.03.10 16:00, schrieb Aditya Mahajan:
For some reason it is defined as \lbracket in MkIV and undefined in
MkII. Does anyone use \lbracket? If not, we can change it to \lbrack.
Otherwise, we can also have both \lbrack and \lbracket defined.
Any thoughts?
Either both or the long form only, memory is no longer a reason to
create funny names like \infty (can we add \infinity please)
I strongly disagree with the idea not defining the forms \lbrack and
\lbrace. Fact is that Knuth defined them in the base of TeX's math. We
should at least stay compatible with that. And please do not also kill
\infty. Why then not also change \equiv to \equivalent, \approx to
\approximate etc, etc? If we start diverging in that way, we loose all
ground. To me that sounds as a horror scenario.
actually i'd like \mathequivalent as core command and then we can have \eq as
shortcut
That sounds good. Do you want the shortcuts to be defined in char-def or
someplace else?
Aditya
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
