David Carlisle skrev 2013-03-01 15.33:
On 01/03/2013 13:46, Lars Hellström wrote:
[snip]
Probably now I'd omit the cd name if it is deducible from the context otherwise if I was using (say) popcorn syntax for all the expressions I'd go with that, or if most expressions are informal or in conventional math style but you just want to refer to the OM symbol probably I'd use the # form.
The case I'm primarily faced with right now is that of referring to a symbol in isolation, i.e., not as part of a larger formula. Thus more like:
U+00D7 (MULTIPLICATION SIGN) serves for both set1#cartesian_product and as variant of arith1#times, whereas linalg1#vectorproduct at least in principle has the separate code point U+2A2F (VECTOR OR CROSS PRODUCT).
Anyone wants to share any thoughts on what might be preferable, and why? And how would one format these things? Is it for example: \texttt{gamma@nums1} \texttt{gamma}@\texttt{nums1} \texttt{nums1\#gamma} \texttt{nums1}\#\texttt{gamma} \texttt{nums1.gamma} $\mathrm{nums1.gamma}$I don't think you need monospace \mathrm seems a good choice
\texttt stresses "computing object" nature of the symbol, whereas \mathrm would stress the "mathematical object" nature. In a formula it is natural that the latter takes precedence, but here I would rather like to stress the former. No special formatting looks fine in email (the long word with # in the middle sets it apart enough), but I fear it might look a bit feeble in print.
On the other hand, I could be damaged from writing too many .dtx files. :-) Lars Hellström _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
