LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Karsten Tinnefeld <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:03:55 +0100
In-Reply-To:
Message from Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> of "Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:22:21 +0100." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Frank,

> how many people would have known (and used the fact)
> that current inputenc latin1 actually has
>
> \DeclareInputText{189}{\textonehalf} % so that gives an error if placed in
>                                      % math
>
> but
>
> \DeclareInputMath{185}{\mathonesuperior}

> would that also make an uproar on ctt? i.e., changing the inputencs to be text
> objects by default

I do not yet understand whether there are any strong objections to
making them work in both modes, e.g.,
        \ifmmode \frac 12 \else \textonehalf \fi        or, resp.,
        \ifmmode ^1       \else \textonesuperior \fi

The strict division suggests that something is very wrong with this.
What?
--
Karsten Tinnefeld                       [log in to unmask]
Fachbereich Informatik, Lehrstuhl 2                   T +49 231 755-4737
Universitšt Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Deutschland   F +49 231 755-2047

ATOM RSS1 RSS2