LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 04:34:04 +0700
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: Chris Rowley <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (31 lines)
On 20 May 2014, at 22:50, Barbara Beeton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> i think maybe the "proper" thing
> to do is recommend declaring these
> multi-letter non-\mathrm strings
> as a special kind of operator name.

My personal logic as a user of such operators agrees largely with this.

But more simply, I think of them as something like: 

    \mathoperator {\mathtext {\textbf {Var}}}

Giving the new command:


And the declaration:


But we may need to distinguish operators from variables.  The variable case would include the case of 'variable names' that include spaces (I find it difficult to imagine an operator name with spaces but who knows?)

The rm case is then, as ever, special as the \mathtext etc is not needed unless spaces are used, but they do no harm.  But is there not also a need for 'unkerned regular roman text'?

More generally, there may well be some 'multiple-character' math objects that should not look like words (eg no kerning and certainly no ligatures!).


PS: the term 'identifier' is not, at least not until quite recently, ever used by math folk.