[NTG-context] References and formulae numbers in upshape
Hi everyone, I'm looking for an easy way to typeset all references produced by the \in command in upshape format (even in an italic paragraph for example). I tried with the 'left' option of \definereferenceformat, but without good results. I would also like to typeset all formulae numbers in upshape. I know Aditya posted about this a long time ago but I can't find the thread any more... Greetings, Morgan ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
[NTG-context] A few questions about aligned maths
Hi everyone, I read carefully the two 'My Way' from Aditya regarding math alignment (thank you for those, they were extremely useful to me, and should maybe get even more visibility on the wiki), and I have some questions about it: 1) Is there a way to modify interline spacing in 'cases' environment? I find it a bit short when using the displaystyle option. 2) I noticed that the interline spacing is not the same in the 'align' and 'aligned' environment (it's larger in 'align'). Is there a way to make 'aligned' use the spacing of align? It looks better with displaystyle maths. 3) Aditya, I saw your remark in your 'My Way' concerning the 'multline' environment. I must admit I would really be glad to see it appear in ConTeXt! I'm afraid I'm not able to implement it myself... I use it a lot with amsmath: when a formula is just too long for one line, I put it on two with multline. The first part of the formula is left aligned on the first line, and the second part is right aligned on the second line. It seems impossible to get the same result with only 'align'. Would it be difficult to make it available in ConTeXt? Best regards, Morgan ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] References and formulae numbers in upshape
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Hi everyone, I'm looking for an easy way to typeset all references produced by the \in command in upshape format (even in an italic paragraph for example). I tried with the 'left' option of \definereferenceformat, but without good results. I would also like to typeset all formulae numbers in upshape. I know Aditya posted about this a long time ago but I can't find the thread any more... I also could not get things to work with \definereferenceformat. This is what I use: \definereferenceformat [doeqref] [left=(,right=)] \def\eqref[#1]{{\normal \doeqref[#1]}} And then \eqref[tag].. 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] A few questions about aligned maths
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Hi everyone, I read carefully the two 'My Way' from Aditya regarding math alignment (thank you for those, they were extremely useful to me, and should maybe get even more visibility on the wiki), and I have some questions about it: 1) Is there a way to modify interline spacing in 'cases' environment? I find it a bit short when using the displaystyle option. There is no clean way to do this at the moment. You can force a looser interline by adding \noalign{\vskip ...} after \NR. 2) I noticed that the interline spacing is not the same in the 'align' and 'aligned' environment (it's larger in 'align'). Is there a way to make 'aligned' use the spacing of align? It looks better with displaystyle maths. I do not like the definition of aligned using matrices that I have presented in the 'My Way'. Matrices try very hard to have a compact interline spacing, while in a aligned environment you need the opposite. At some point, I played with some of the internals of core-mat, and had a working definition of aligned. I cannot find it at the moment :( 3) Aditya, I saw your remark in your 'My Way' concerning the 'multline' environment. I must admit I would really be glad to see it appear in ConTeXt! I'm afraid I'm not able to implement it myself... I use it a lot with amsmath: when a formula is just too long for one line, I put it on two with multline. The first part of the formula is left aligned on the first line, and the second part is right aligned on the second line. It seems impossible to get the same result with only 'align'. Would it be difficult to make it available in ConTeXt? No, multline is probably the simplest of all math environments. I do not really understand what all features it should have. If you can explain everything you want from a multiline environment, I can give a shot at trying to implement that, and Hans and Taco could polish it up. 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] References and formulae numbers in upshape
Le Thursday 13 March 2008 13:03:22 Aditya Mahajan, vous avez écrit : On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Hi everyone, I'm looking for an easy way to typeset all references produced by the \in command in upshape format (even in an italic paragraph for example). I tried with the 'left' option of \definereferenceformat, but without good results. I would also like to typeset all formulae numbers in upshape. I know Aditya posted about this a long time ago but I can't find the thread any more... I also could not get things to work with \definereferenceformat. This is what I use: \definereferenceformat [doeqref] [left=(,right=)] \def\eqref[#1]{{\normal \doeqref[#1]}} And then \eqref[tag].. Aditya Thank you, I'll use this too! It could be useful to add an option to \definereferenceformat to get the same result. Is it hard to implement? And concerning the equation tag itself, I mean the one introduced by \placeformula, is there a way to have it always typeset in upshape? Morgan ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] References and formulae numbers in upshape
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Aditya Mahajan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Hi everyone, I'm looking for an easy way to typeset all references produced by the \in command in upshape format (even in an italic paragraph for example). I tried with the 'left' option of \definereferenceformat, but without good results. I would also like to typeset all formulae numbers in upshape. I know Aditya posted about this a long time ago but I can't find the thread any more... I also could not get things to work with \definereferenceformat. This is what I use: \definereferenceformat [doeqref] [left=(,right=)] \def\eqref[#1]{{\normal \doeqref[#1]}} Why not \definereferenceformat [eqref] [left=\normal(, right=)] Wolfgang ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] A few questions about aligned maths
Le Thursday 13 March 2008 13:23:06 Aditya Mahajan, vous avez écrit : On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Hi everyone, I read carefully the two 'My Way' from Aditya regarding math alignment (thank you for those, they were extremely useful to me, and should maybe get even more visibility on the wiki), and I have some questions about it: 1) Is there a way to modify interline spacing in 'cases' environment? I find it a bit short when using the displaystyle option. There is no clean way to do this at the moment. You can force a looser interline by adding \noalign{\vskip ...} after \NR. Ok, I'll do that. This is the \needspace command described in your 'My Way', isn't it? I should have remembered it! 2) I noticed that the interline spacing is not the same in the 'align' and 'aligned' environment (it's larger in 'align'). Is there a way to make 'aligned' use the spacing of align? It looks better with displaystyle maths. I do not like the definition of aligned using matrices that I have presented in the 'My Way'. Matrices try very hard to have a compact interline spacing, while in a aligned environment you need the opposite. At some point, I played with some of the internals of core-mat, and had a working definition of aligned. I cannot find it at the moment :( Maybe another solution would be to add left and right options directly to the align environment. But of course I have no idea if it is possible... Anyway, if you find your new definition back, I would be glad to test it! 3) Aditya, I saw your remark in your 'My Way' concerning the 'multline' environment. I must admit I would really be glad to see it appear in ConTeXt! I'm afraid I'm not able to implement it myself... I use it a lot with amsmath: when a formula is just too long for one line, I put it on two with multline. The first part of the formula is left aligned on the first line, and the second part is right aligned on the second line. It seems impossible to get the same result with only 'align'. Would it be difficult to make it available in ConTeXt? No, multline is probably the simplest of all math environments. I do not really understand what all features it should have. If you can explain everything you want from a multiline environment, I can give a shot at trying to implement that, and Hans and Taco could polish it up. Aditya Concerning multline, I only read the specification given in amsldoc.pdf: 3.3 Split equations without alignment. Multline does not support alignment, so you can't put '' inside it, only '\\'. All it does is cut the equation into several lines: the first is left aligned, the last is right aligned, and all the intermediate are centered. I don't if this is sufficient as an explanation. Please let me know if I can help or test. And thank you for your time! Morgan ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] References and formulae numbers in upshape
Le Thursday 13 March 2008 19:16:02 Wolfgang Schuster, vous avez écrit : On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Aditya Mahajan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Hi everyone, I'm looking for an easy way to typeset all references produced by the \in command in upshape format (even in an italic paragraph for example). I tried with the 'left' option of \definereferenceformat, but without good results. I would also like to typeset all formulae numbers in upshape. I know Aditya posted about this a long time ago but I can't find the thread any more... I also could not get things to work with \definereferenceformat. This is what I use: \definereferenceformat [doeqref] [left=(,right=)] \def\eqref[#1]{{\normal \doeqref[#1]}} Why not \definereferenceformat [eqref] [left=\normal(, right=)] Wolfgang Is it so simple, really? Great! But can't this have some side effects in particular cases? I mean, the {} around \normal aren't needed here? Well, it seems ok for me in slanted enumerations for theorems and such. Thank you! Morgan ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] References and formulae numbers in upshape
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:44:06 +0100 Morgan Brassel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le Thursday 13 March 2008 19:16:02 Wolfgang Schuster, vous avez écrit : On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Aditya Mahajan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Hi everyone, I'm looking for an easy way to typeset all references produced by the \in command in upshape format (even in an italic paragraph for example). I tried with the 'left' option of \definereferenceformat, but without good results. I would also like to typeset all formulae numbers in upshape. I know Aditya posted about this a long time ago but I can't find the thread any more... I also could not get things to work with \definereferenceformat. This is what I use: \definereferenceformat [doeqref] [left=(,right=)] \def\eqref[#1]{{\normal \doeqref[#1]}} Why not \definereferenceformat [eqref] [left=\normal(, right=)] Wolfgang Is it so simple, really? Great! But can't this have some side effects in particular cases? I mean, the {} around \normal aren't needed here? Not in this case because references are grouped by themselve but it is better to use grouping. \definereferenceformat [eqref] [left=\bgroup\normal(, right=)\egroup] Well, it seems ok for me in slanted enumerations for theorems and such. Wolfgang ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] References and formulae numbers in upshape
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:44:06 +0100 Morgan Brassel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le Thursday 13 March 2008 19:16:02 Wolfgang Schuster, vous avez écrit : On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Aditya Mahajan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Hi everyone, I'm looking for an easy way to typeset all references produced by the \in command in upshape format (even in an italic paragraph for example). I tried with the 'left' option of \definereferenceformat, but without good results. I would also like to typeset all formulae numbers in upshape. I know Aditya posted about this a long time ago but I can't find the thread any more... I also could not get things to work with \definereferenceformat. This is what I use: \definereferenceformat [doeqref] [left=(,right=)] \def\eqref[#1]{{\normal \doeqref[#1]}} Why not \definereferenceformat [eqref] [left=\normal(, right=)] Wolfgang Is it so simple, really? Great! But can't this have some side effects in particular cases? I mean, the {} around \normal aren't needed here? Not in this case because references are grouped by themselve but it is better to use grouping. \definereferenceformat [eqref] [left=\bgroup\normal(, right=)\egroup] This was my first attempt, but it gave some trouble. I need to go back and check. 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] References and formulae numbers in upshape
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Le Thursday 13 March 2008 13:03:22 Aditya Mahajan, vous avez écrit : On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Hi everyone, I'm looking for an easy way to typeset all references produced by the \in command in upshape format (even in an italic paragraph for example). I tried with the 'left' option of \definereferenceformat, but without good results. I would also like to typeset all formulae numbers in upshape. I know Aditya posted about this a long time ago but I can't find the thread any more... I also could not get things to work with \definereferenceformat. This is what I use: \definereferenceformat [doeqref] [left=(,right=)] \def\eqref[#1]{{\normal \doeqref[#1]}} And then \eqref[tag].. Aditya Thank you, I'll use this too! It could be useful to add an option to \definereferenceformat to get the same result. Is it hard to implement? And concerning the equation tag itself, I mean the one introduced by \placeformula, is there a way to have it always typeset in upshape? \setupformulas[numberstyle=normal] 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] A few questions about aligned maths
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Morgan Brassel wrote: Concerning multline, I only read the specification given in amsldoc.pdf: 3.3 Split equations without alignment. Multline does not support alignment, so you can't put '' inside it, only '\\'. All it does is cut the equation into several lines: the first is left aligned, the last is right aligned, and all the intermediate are centered. I don't if this is sufficient as an explanation. Please let me know if I can help or test. And thank you for your time! So, will this user interface be enough: \startformula \startmultline \NC line 1 \FR \NC line 2 \MR \NC line 3 \LR \stopmultline \stopformula Lines with \FR are flush left, lines with \MR are centered, and lines with \LR are right flushed. (First row, middle row, last row; as in tables). multline also has \pushleft and \pushright with go against the ConTeXt way of things. It is also possible to just have \NR at each row, and let ConTeXt figure out the correct flushing. That will involve a two-pass algorithm, and I will give that a try. The other thing is placement of equation numbers. It is easy to implement multline so that equation number is always centered. I am not sure if the current ConTeXt mechanism allows for equation number to be placed on the bottom (similar to tbtags options). 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] A few questions about aligned maths
Le Friday 14 March 2008 00:48:55 Aditya Mahajan, vous avez écrit : So, will this user interface be enough: \startformula \startmultline \NC line 1 \FR \NC line 2 \MR \NC line 3 \LR \stopmultline \stopformula Lines with \FR are flush left, lines with \MR are centered, and lines with \LR are right flushed. (First row, middle row, last row; as in tables). multline also has \pushleft and \pushright with go against the ConTeXt way of things. It seems great to me. Would it be possible to use \FR ou \LR for intermediate lines? It could be a way to get the same result as \pushleft and \pushright in amsmath. Anyway, I'm not sure this is a very useful feature: centered lines in the middle is clearly the best choice (at least for me!). It is also possible to just have \NR at each row, and let ConTeXt figure out the correct flushing. That will involve a two-pass algorithm, and I will give that a try. If the use of \FR and \LR can address the problem of \pushleft and \pushright, the first solution would be more powerful... And maybe it's more coherent with ConTeXt tables. The other thing is placement of equation numbers. It is easy to implement multline so that equation number is always centered. I am not sure if the current ConTeXt mechanism allows for equation number to be placed on the bottom (similar to tbtags options). Aditya As multline is supposed to be used to typeset one only equation, I guess the choice made in amsmath is the best for tag placement: last line if placed right and first line if placed left. But if it's not possible currently, a centered tag would not hurt me at all... Morgan ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] References and formulae numbers in upshape
\definereferenceformat [eqref] [left=\bgroup\normal(, right=)\egroup] This was my first attempt, but it gave some trouble. I need to go back and check. Aditya I now realize that my first question was not very clear: what I need in fact is to typeset *all* references obtained by the \in command in upshape. For example, in {\it See \in{Figure}[fig:det] for details.}, I would like to see 'Figure 1' in upshape and the rest in italic. I tried: \setupreferencing [left=\bgroup\normal, right=\egroup] without success. Is there a way to achieve this without defining new reference formats? Thanks in advance, Morgan ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___