On 8/21/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darren Dale wrote:
> >> I'm concerned about consistency and/or redundancy between this and the
> >> new markup kwarg. I don't know whether or not "usetex" being
> >> "all-or-nothing" is desirable. But we could meet in the middle by doing
Darren Dale wrote:
> On Monday 20 August 2007 10:18:27 am Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> On a related note, there was a recent thread on matplotlib-users about
>> usetex being a global setting:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04101
>> .html
>>
>> I'm concerned about consistency
On Monday 20 August 2007 10:18:27 am Michael Droettboom wrote:
> On a related note, there was a recent thread on matplotlib-users about
> usetex being a global setting:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04101
>.html
>
> I'm concerned about consistency and/or redundancy between th
Sorry for taking so long to respond -- I was at SciPy and wanted to make
sure I had the time to sit down and look at this before responding.
Paul Kienzle wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:31:04AM -0400, Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify mat
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:31:04AM -0400, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
> vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
> using a new kw argument (probably format="math" to be most future-proof)
> or Math('
Darren Dale wrote:
[...]
>
> How about markup="TeX" then?
"markup" is a good kwarg for this; it is descriptive and won't be
confused with anything else.
Eric
>
>> And yes, having a rcoption default seems like it could be handy.
>
---
On Thursday 02 August 2007 11:03:09 am Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Darren Dale wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 August 2007 10:42:17 am John Hunter wrote:
> >> On 8/2/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
> >>> vs. reg
Darren Dale wrote:
> On Thursday 02 August 2007 10:42:17 am John Hunter wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
>>> vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
>
On Thursday 02 August 2007 10:42:17 am John Hunter wrote:
> On 8/2/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
> > vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
> > using a new kw argument (probabl
On 8/2/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
> vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
> using a new kw argument (probably format="math" to be most future-proof)
> or Math('string'). I d
I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
using a new kw argument (probably format="math" to be most future-proof)
or Math('string'). I don't think I have enough "historical perspective"
to really m
John Hunter wrote:
> On 7/26/07, Darren Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> where Math is a wrapper object that signals to "text" that its contents
>>> are to be passed to the mathtext interpreter.
>> I would like to voice my opinion against this idea. I think the backward
>> imcompatibility will b
On Friday 27 July 2007 08:38:49 am Michael Droettboom wrote:
> If we go with another delimiter, there are others in TeX to choose
> from. Plain TeX uses $$ for display math, and LaTeX uses \[, \]. Both
> of these are less likely to be legitimate literals. While display math
> normally implies th
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:52:27AM -0400, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Using this "mathtext=True" option (as opposed to using a delimiter that
> TeX doesn't understand) or something else entirely, would certainly make
> it easier to make usetex vs. not usetex more consistent.
I think so to.
> Mo
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:38:49AM -0400, Michael Droettboom wrote:
>
>>> text(x, y, 'what is the $\sin(x)$', mathtext=True)
>>>
>
>
>> Except for the backward incompatibility, I like this because it is explicit.
>>
>
> Juust a data point for the discussion
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:38:49AM -0400, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> > text(x, y, 'what is the $\sin(x)$', mathtext=True)
> Except for the backward incompatibility, I like this because it is explicit.
Juust a data point for the discussion. I think it would be very nice if a
script gave the same
John Hunter wrote:
> Option 1 is to educate them, and require them to \$
> quote that symbol. Option 2 is to enable a text property eg mathtext,
> and do
>
> text(x, y, 'what is the $\sin(x)$', mathtext=True)
>
Except for the backward incompatibility, I like this because it is explicit.
> Optio
"John Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm on the fence as to how to handle this case. The majority of our
> users will think of $ as the US currency symbol, and will have never
> heard of TeX.
Those users are probably also not so likely to want to use mathtext, so
there could be an rc sett
On 7/26/07, Darren Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 July 2007 9:05:41 pm Fernando Perez wrote:
> > This sounds to me like a good case for Guido's mantra of NOT putting
> > keywords in functions and instead just making two separate functions.
> > Why not just
> >
> > text(x,y,"This
On Thursday 26 July 2007 9:05:41 pm Fernando Perez wrote:
> [ That was meant for the list, sorry ]
>
> On 7/26/07, John Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm on the fence as to how to handle this case. The majority of our
> > users will think of $ as the US currency symbol, and will have never
[ That was meant for the list, sorry ]
On 7/26/07, John Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm on the fence as to how to handle this case. The majority of our
> users will think of $ as the US currency symbol, and will have never
> heard of TeX. Option 1 is to educate them, and require them t
On 7/26/07, Darren Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > where Math is a wrapper object that signals to "text" that its contents
> > are to be passed to the mathtext interpreter.
>
> I would like to voice my opinion against this idea. I think the backward
> imcompatibility will be rare, and does not
On Thursday 26 July 2007 5:54:18 pm Jouni K. Seppänen wrote:
> It seems that the improvements finally allow users to mix mathtext with
> ordinary text, as in 'foo $a=b^c+d$ bar', which I believe has been
> requested a lot. This is really cool, but I think it causes another
> backward incompatibilit
It seems that the improvements finally allow users to mix mathtext with
ordinary text, as in 'foo $a=b^c+d$ bar', which I believe has been
requested a lot. This is really cool, but I think it causes another
backward incompatibility: you could use dollar signs in text strings
(except if you wanted a
John Hunter wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It's been fun working through this. You may want to check out
>> mathtext_examples.py in my branch for examples that exercise other new
>> features.
>
> Maybe you haven't committed it?
Doh! Try now.
Cheers,
Mike
On 7/25/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been fun working through this. You may want to check out
> mathtext_examples.py in my branch for examples that exercise other new
> features.
Maybe you haven't committed it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:examples> pwd
/home/titan/johnh/pytho
John Hunter wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The new mathtext with an underlying TeX-like box model is passing all
>> unit tests for all backends. I'm now at a point where I'd like to merge
>> this back into the trunk, but I'd like some feedback as to how to be
Gael Varoquaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 11:36:17AM -0500, John Hunter wrote:
>> * There is a lot of space between the \prod symbol and the rest of
>> the expression and between the \mathcal{R} and the \prod symbol --
>> what controls this? It looks like it is being a
Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> In the existing mathtext implementation, font style changes affect the
> following group. For example, in $\cal{R} x$, only the R will be in
> calligraphic face. In TeX, however, font style markers stay in effect
> until the next font style marker o
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 11:36:17AM -0500, John Hunter wrote:
> * There is a lot of space between the \prod symbol and the rest of
> the expression and between the \mathcal{R} and the \prod symbol --
> what controls this? It looks like it is being affected by the wide
> \prod subscript {i=\alpha_{
On 7/25/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The new mathtext with an underlying TeX-like box model is passing all
> unit tests for all backends. I'm now at a point where I'd like to merge
> this back into the trunk, but I'd like some feedback as to how to best
> deal with the backw
John Hunter wrote:
> That or we simply adopt the TeX standard
+1 TeX is widely used and well documented -- why have something almost
the same?
though I still think the real solution is to sue TeX itself to do the
typesetting. not the way we do now, but:
Parsing the DVI and laying out stuff
On Monday 16 July 2007 02:32:30 pm John Hunter wrote:
> On 7/16/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm working on some improvements to the mathtext engine on a branch.
> > Feel free to join in if curious, but I expect to break lots of things as
> > I go.
> >
> > https://matplotli
On 7/16/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Deal with nested sub/superscripts, such as $x_i_j$, equivalent to
> $x_{i_j}$
> 2. Make the font change tags (\cal, \tt, \rm etc.) behave more like TeX,
> In general, is the goal with mathtext to become as TeX-compatible as
> possible
John Hunter wrote:
> On 7/16/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm working on some improvements to the mathtext engine on a branch.
>> Feel free to join in if curious, but I expect to break lots of things as
>> I go.
>>
>> https://matplotlib.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/matplotlib
On 7/16/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm working on some improvements to the mathtext engine on a branch.
> Feel free to join in if curious, but I expect to break lots of things as
> I go.
>
> https://matplotlib.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/matplotlib/branches/mathtext_mgd/
>
36 matches
Mail list logo
