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
handin, 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 latexsearch.com, 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Actually (and ideally), code snippets should not be published without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.

Rasmus Villemoes
<http://rasmusvillemoes.dk/>
