Hi Freddie,
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Freddie Witherden
<fred...@witherden.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been toying around with a couple of ideas which might be worth
> investigating for the LaTeX printer. First off, different bracket
> styles depending on the nesting level. So it might go:
> { [ ( ( ) ) ] }; exactly how to do this I am unsure. It depends on how
> easy it is to maintain the nesting level. Ideally {} and [] should
> only be used for adjacent brackets, for example:
>
> (x*(y+3)+4)^3 doesn't really require nested brackets, but:
>
> [a*exp(z*I)] does.
Yes, I like what you propose.
>
> This is the kind of thing that I might be tempted towards the evils of
> regular expressions to achieve. Hopefully, however there is a much
> more elegant solution.
If the regular expression is maintainable, why not.
>
> Secondly, constant expanding. If one has a fraction <x>/k where k is a
> constant it is often nice to pull the constant out front when
> printing, giving 1/k * <x> where <x> is an arbitrary expression. This,
> again sacrifices horizontal space for better readability (a larger
> font size can be used for <x>). I am yet to look into how hard this
> would be to achieve, however.
Yes, I also agree with you.
>
> Finally, an option to use exp() as opposed to {e}^{<x>}. This is most
> useful when outputting the solutions to differential equations, which
> often raise e to quite a large fraction/expression. Using exp() leads
> to better readability (due to the larger font size and greater
> spacing). I propose the following: we have a configuration option to
> choose between {e}^{x}, exp(x) and auto, where auto uses heuristics to
> decide (as soon as you get to needing brackets or fractions exp() is
> often nicer).
Again +1.
>
> Be interested to know what you all think -- and if you have any
> implementation hints.
I am all for it, thanks for thinking about it. Thanks also for your
other patch in #1248.
> On 24 Dec 2008, at 23:36, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
>> When you say configuration option I assume you mean a global switch so
>> you can turn the option off and on for different parts of the program.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines as an optional parameter passed to
> latex(expr, expFormat='auto') or something along those lines. That way
> there is no need for any kind of global state variable and so no need
> to set/restore it.
>
> Although having to pass multiple configuration options each time is
> not the nicest thing in the world, in 99% of cases the defaults will
> probably be what most people want.
Yes, I am also for latex(expr, exp_format='auto') or something, rather
than a global option.
Ondrej
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
