Hans,
I made a small mistake in the phys-dim.mkxl file I sent you. I removed a % at
the end of lines 469 and 485. Without the %, using alternative=text causes
extra space before the unit. A corrected phys-dim.mkxl is attached.
Gavin
phys-dim.mkxl
Description: application/applefile
Hi Hans,
> I'll look into it (with Mikael as some relates to math) once you're done
> playing and provide suggestions and tests.
I’m done playing. Below are tests and suggestions. Sorry it has taken so long
for me to put this together.
Tests
I attached two test files. The first,
On 10/13/2022 1:52 PM, Gavin via ntg-context wrote:
Hi Oli,
Thank four your effort. I found out, that the following definition of a new
unit, i called it SI, results also in a correct spaceing in the math
environment:
\defineunit[SI][alternative=text]
It seems, that the option
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 21:14:52 -0600
Gavin wrote:
> As a recovering string theorist, I cannot help but speculate that
> this rule extends to spherical coordinates in any number of
> dimensions. However, if you don’t want the space, you can use
> 135\unit{℃}, which does not add a space.
Will
Hi Oli,
> Thank four your effort. I found out, that the following definition of a new
> unit, i called it SI, results also in a correct spaceing in the math
> environment:
>
> \defineunit[SI][alternative=text]
>
> It seems, that the option alternative=text solves the problem with no spaces
>
Hi Gavin
Thank four your effort. I found out, that the following definition of a new
unit, i called it SI, results also in a correct spaceing in the math
environment:
\defineunit[SI][alternative=text]
It seems, that the option alternative=text solves the problem with no spaces
between value
Hi Alan
> On Oct 12, 2022, at 5:55 PM, Alan Braslau via ntg-context
> wrote:
>
> \unit{135℃} adds a space after the digits 135.
> I do not believe that this is correct
> (for ℃ is *not* a "real" unit, unlike \unit{408.15 K} which *is* a real
> unit).
According to “Scientific Style and Format:
Hi Max and Rik
> On Oct 12, 2022, at 4:49 PM, Max Chernoff wrote:
>
> This new output looks *much* better than the old one, thanks!
Thank you!
> My only comment is that the spacing around the multiplication sign looks
> a little too tight to me. The original spacing was probably too large,
>
Further \unit question(s):
\unit{135℃} adds a space after the digits 135.
I do not believe that this is correct
(for ℃ is *not* a "real" unit, unlike \unit{408.15 K} which *is* a real
unit).
Also,
\unit{135°C} drops the "C". Is this a parsing bug?
Related,
\unit{90°} does not seem to introduce
Hi Gavin,
On Wed, 2022-10-12 at 15:54 -0600, Gavin wrote:
> Hi Max, Alan, Bruce, Hans, et.al
>
> I solved my four issues with \unit spacing. In the process, I
> prevented unwanted line breaks and removed an overzealous backspace
> before division symbols. Below is a MWE that shows all of these
>
On 2022-10-12 17:54, Gavin via ntg-context wrote:
Hi Max, Alan, Bruce, Hans, et.al
I solved my four issues with \unit spacing. In the process, I prevented
unwanted line breaks and removed an overzealous backspace before division
symbols. Below is a MWE that shows all of these issues, as well
Hi Max, Alan, Bruce, Hans, et.al
I solved my four issues with \unit spacing. In the process, I prevented
unwanted line breaks and removed an overzealous backspace before division
symbols. Below is a MWE that shows all of these issues, as well as pictures of
the result with the unmodified
Hi Alan,
> I would very strongly argue that the space between the number and the
> following units be UNBREAKABLE. Perhaps a thin space (preference), but
> most certainly non-breakable.
>
> Similarly around the times in scientific notation.
>
> I further cannot imagine that a line break be
On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 11:59:04 -0600
Gavin via ntg-context wrote:
> I’m trying to fix four issues:
> - No space between the number and the following units. Should be a
> thin space.
> - No space between the units and the following symbol (+ and =
> above). Should be appropriate “bin" or “rel"
Hi list,
I made a small example with all of the issues I am trying to fix for the \units
command. The first formula below uses the \unit command, but produces strange
spacing. The second formula produces the desired spacing, without using the
\unit command.
\showmakeup[mathglue]
> On 25 Sep 2022, at 14:30, Gavin via ntg-context wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> I have a few questions about space produced by the unit command. Consider
> this MWE
>
> \starttext
> \unit{3.00e8 kg m/s}
>
> $\unit{3.00e8 kg m/s}$
> \stoptext
>
> The dot between “kg” and “m” has different
On 9/25/2022 5:29 PM, Gavin via ntg-context wrote:
Hi Hans,
I also just noticed that the space between the number and the unit is missing
when I typeset with ConTeXt ver: 2022.09.11 20:44 LMTX fmt: 2022.9.25. This
space was present in with the ConTeXt version I was using earlier, from a
Hi Hans,
I also just noticed that the space between the number and the unit is missing
when I typeset with ConTeXt ver: 2022.09.11 20:44 LMTX fmt: 2022.9.25. This
space was present in with the ConTeXt version I was using earlier, from a
couple months ago. Thanks for putting it on the math todo
On 9/25/2022 3:30 PM, Gavin via ntg-context wrote:
Hello list,
I have a few questions about space produced by the unit command. Consider this
MWE
\starttext
\unit{3.00e8 kg m/s}
$\unit{3.00e8 kg m/s}$
\stoptext
The dot between “kg” and “m” has different spacing depending on whether the
Hello list,
I have a few questions about space produced by the unit command. Consider this
MWE
\starttext
\unit{3.00e8 kg m/s}
$\unit{3.00e8 kg m/s}$
\stoptext
The dot between “kg” and “m” has different spacing depending on whether the
\unit command is in text or math mode. I think that the
20 matches
Mail list logo
