> On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:25, Hans Hagen <j.ha...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>> \startformula
>>> \unstackscripts 𝑷₂₀(0), ∀²𝑥⁰⁺²₂₀: 𝑷₂₀(𝑥⁰⁺²₂₀) ⇒ 𝑷₂₀(s(𝑥⁰⁺²₂₀)) ⊢ ∀¹𝑦⁰⁺¹₂₀
>>> 𝑷₂₀(𝑦⁰⁺¹₂₀)
>>> \stopformula
>> That might be useful for those depending on it, and presumably there is a
>> \stackscripts, too. Just comes to my mind:
>> Though probably non-standard in typesetting, one might make a slight
>> typographic difference between 𝑥²₀ and 𝑥₀² by letting the sub- or
>> superscripts that come later partially, but not fully, to the position of
>> the one that comes before. For example, 𝑥₀² might mean the square of 𝑥₀, and
>> 𝑥²₀ the component 0 of 𝑥², not necessarily the same. Traditionally, such
>> things are left for the reader to interpret.
>
> ok, we can apply selectively ... {\unstackscripts ... {\stackscripts ...} ...
> } ... maybe we need short commands that take an argument, like
> \unstack{............} but that might clash ... just give it some thought ...
Your suggestion might be great for simplifying tensor component notation, as
one then can omit separators like {} or |. But then what would happen, even
perhaps not that common, if one would need to have it stacked somewhere else in
the formula. So in my mind, this would be just top level \unstackscripts …
\stackscripts … \unstackscripts.
The other idea would be something like \partialstackscripts, but actual demand
is unclear. :-)
___________________________________________________________________________________
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://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
