Am Montag, den 09.05.2011, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Aditya Mahajan: > On Wed, 4 May 2011, Hans Hagen wrote: > > > On 4-5-2011 12:52, Paul Menzel wrote: > > > >> I think the question is the following. Does ConTeXt want to define all > >> commands amstex/amsmath defines? > > > > You need to convince Aditya then as he has to make up that list. > > I think that ConTeXt should be feature compatible with amstex; not > necessarily syntax compatible. Although syntax compatibility eases the > translation of old amstex documents to ConTeXt, it is not a good long > term solution. > > So, the question remains, is this feature (changing the meaning of > \dotsb etc) by authors?
s/by/needed by/? If it takes more than 10 minutes to implement or increases the maintenance burden, I can live without it. > If so, we can add an option to \setupmathematics or a dedicated > \setupdots (or something similar) command. That sounds like a feasible solution. Thanks, Paul
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________
