LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
"Michael J. Downes" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:09:14 -0500
text/plain (78 lines)
Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>  > >  text text\footnote{first}\footnote{second}
>  > >
>  > >in most case this would be supposed to come out as
>  > >
>  > >            1, 2
>  > >  text text

> okay, i've convinced myself too that this boolean would be useful whether or
> not it is passed onto the user syntax level (instead one could think, for
> example, of extending xparse to be able to check for a certain command
> following and if so setting such a boolean)

I would just like to give some more examples where the idea of combined
formatting for consecutive elements of the same type might be

  \cite{foo}\cite{bar}  -> [19,35] instead of [19] [35]

The above usage would allow each \cite to have its own optional arg,
something that is not possible with current syntax.


Here one might like to have the pair of refs expand to

  Sections~\ref{foo} and \ref{bar}

or for three or more


A similar idea: author names in a bibitem (if bibitems were done with
logical markup instead of preprocessed by BibTeX):

  \bibitem{foo} \author{First Author} \author{Second Author} ...

where one might like to have consecutive author names automatically
combined into a list form "A, B, and C" or whatever. Such a reformatting
is already done by amsart.cls for the author names printed in
\maketitle but that is a different mechanism because accumulating the
data and printing happen in two different steps and there is a
definite stopping point (\maketitle) where it is known that the list
of author elements is complete.

Then consider


which an author might reasonably expect to be combined into a group of
equations (with differences in the vertical spacing and page-break
penalties). One might even say that the equations in a consecutive group
should by default get aligned on the relation symbols---but then it
becomes clear that in some cases the author will want to override the
default whichever way it goes: i.e., need to specify an option for the
whole group. This suggests I think that group markup would be a good
idea after all:




(One might like to have a smart editor that automatically adds the group
markup when you put in the second footnote :-)

Michael Downes