[sage-devel] Re: \Bold command definition in every LaTeX output
Hi,
Le lundi 20 décembre 2021 à 12:06:05 UTC+1, AlbertHilb a écrit :
> Problem solved! Thank you very much!
>
That being said, it seems to me that these \newcommand{Bold} in each LaTeX
output (!) are an unnecessary pollution of the Jupyter notebooks in
%display latex mode. Unless there might be a reason for it, why not
replacing lines like
return r"\Bold{Q}"
by
return r"\mathbf{Q}"
in the relevant _latex_ methods ? (the above example is line 279 of
src/sage/rings/rational_field.py)
Eric.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d56a3258-a95e-49b4-beb8-b38ed7493014n%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: \Bold command definition in every LaTeX output
I would vote for updating our LaTeX methods to use more standard macros.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021, 10:49 Eric Gourgoulhon, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le lundi 20 décembre 2021 à 12:06:05 UTC+1, AlbertHilb a écrit :
>
>> Problem solved! Thank you very much!
>>
>
> That being said, it seems to me that these \newcommand{Bold} in each LaTeX
> output (!) are an unnecessary pollution of the Jupyter notebooks in
> %display latex mode. Unless there might be a reason for it, why not
> replacing lines like
> return r"\Bold{Q}"
> by
> return r"\mathbf{Q}"
> in the relevant _latex_ methods ? (the above example is line 279 of
> src/sage/rings/rational_field.py)
>
> Eric.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d56a3258-a95e-49b4-beb8-b38ed7493014n%40googlegroups.com
>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq0mbzu0xbjfoNUwotC_6_nJK%2BfzGEPBujOBfi6FdkgWeQ%40mail.gmail.com.
[sage-devel] Re: \Bold command definition in every LaTeX output
On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-8 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
> Unless there might be a reason for it, why not replacing lines like
> return r"\Bold{Q}"
> by
> return r"\mathbf{Q}"
> in the relevant _latex_ methods ?
>
+1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/f4ae357d-244c-4e53-84f1-c0cda7d8a16fn%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [sage-devel] Add more-itertools as a standard package
Hi Samuel, This is a popular pure Python package. It seems to have a history of non-breaking releases, so I would not mind adding it if it makes our lives much easier (and keeps us from reinventing the wheel when implementing algorithms.) As a maintainer of SageMath in conda-forge, I don't mind new dependencies if they are very easy to package, popular, and actively maintained. While I am very much in favor of making SageMath more modular and I believe that some of our dependencies are a problem, I don't think that such pure Python dependencies are causing any issues here. I am not too worried about the security implications here. more-itertools is according to GitHub used by 118k projects. So, if it gets compromised we'll know before we release a new version of SageMath and actually before we even consider upgrading our SPKG. more-itertools is already packaged in the distributions I checked (Debian/Ubuntu, ArchLinux, conda-forge) btw. julian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/fd52c63c-4158-4917-a3f7-7901d2caac02n%40googlegroups.com.
[sage-devel] Re: \Bold command definition in every LaTeX output
I have no objection to this, but the purpose for using \Bold{...} was to
make its behavior easily customizable, since some people might want
\mathbf{...} and some might want \mathbb{...}. Are you suggesting replacing
\Bold in the latex() method for the object, or keeping it but doing the
redefinition as \mathbf using Python/Sphinx rather than in LaTeX?
--
John
On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 8:54:56 AM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-8 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
>
>> Unless there might be a reason for it, why not replacing lines like
>> return r"\Bold{Q}"
>> by
>> return r"\mathbf{Q}"
>> in the relevant _latex_ methods ?
>>
>
> +1
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/b894b35c-d7f5-487a-8346-6d976dc24aa7n%40googlegroups.com.
