LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


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
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Robin Fairbairns <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:51:26 +0000
Your message of Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:52:08 -0500. <[log in to unmask]>
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (53 lines)
Rasmus Villemoes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Juergen Fenn <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> > Am 08.02.11 09:37 schrieb Juergen Fenn:
> >
> >> But unfortunately I did not get any code snippets from there,
> >
> > I have to correct this: You get the LaTeX source by simply copy and
> > pasting the formulae... it's as simple as that, e.g.:
> [snip; my eyes can't watch this]
> Oh my FSM. Is that actually supposed to _help_ anybody? I mean, if
> MeasureTheoryStudent2011 doesn't know how to get the abbreviation for
> "almost everywhere" included in an equation, and she finds this
> p^{\rm{i}} \left( {{\mathbf{x}} ( {\text{t}}),{\mathbf{u}} (t), t} \right) = 0,\quad {\text{a}} . {\text{e}}.\quad i = 1, \ldots l
> wouldn't it be much better if she just wrote "$$f(x) = 0, a.e.$$" in her
> hand-in, and then had a helpful TA explain one of the right ways of
> doing it. The above is certainly not one of them.
> If you post LaTeX code online, and especially if you post "millions of
> snippets", for others to learn from and be inspired by, I believe you
> have a certain responsibility that that code is not awful and
> misguiding. If students are exposed to code of the "quality" and
> unnecessary complexity on, it's no wonder they turn
> elsewhere for typesetting math.
> Actually (and ideally), code snippets should not be published without
> being accompanied by a few explanations. Variants such as
>   f(x) = 0, \quad \text{a.e.}
>   f(x) = 0  \qquad \textrm{a.e.}
> could all be correct, depending primarily on a stylistic choice, but
> an explanation of \quad and \qquad and the (subtle) difference between
> \text and \textrm would be helpful.

indeed.  when we were first alerted to this stuff (ages ago, by barbara
beeton, iirc), i had a look at it with a view to mentioning it in the
faq that i maintain.  after not very long i realised it was no more than
a collection of random code, hacks and dubious stuff not excluded, and
forgot about adding reference to it in the faq.

a collection of rational coding of mathematical examples might be useful
(and explanations as you mention would make it more useful still), but
that requires work with something more sensitive than a shovel, which
would appear to be what's used here.