myb100@csc.anu.oz (05/06/89)
In article <1404@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>, charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > In article <3847@utastro.UUCP> hgcjr@utastro.UUCP (Harold G. Corwin Jr.) > writes: > >> But easy? TeX? No way. Made any easier using the TeXbook? Only if >> your job is typesetting and you're being paid to wade through a jungle >> of lions and dangerous curves. End of flame. > > Unless you write mathematics. Then chapters 16--19 of the {\TeX}book > are {\it must\/} reading. > > The \LaTeX\ manual is simply insufficient. It doesn't even cover putting > thin spaces in such simple formulas as > \[ {\cal F} = \{\, f_\theta : \theta \in \Theta \,\} \] > and > \[ \int f \, d\mu \] > or the double quad space in > \[ \theta_i \le \theta_{i+1}, \qquad i = 1, \ldots, n-1. \] > > No reason why it should of course. > (meekly) Excuse me, on page 52 of LLs LaTeX manaul is a section entitled 3.3.7 Spacing in Math mode........ --Markus Buchhorn Mt Stromlo Observatory, Canberra A.C.T., Australia MARKUS@MSO.ANU.OZ, MYB100@CSC.ANU.OZ
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (05/14/89)
> In article <1404@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> I wrote: Unless you write mathematics. Then chapters 16--19 of the {\TeX}book are {\it must\/} reading. The \LaTeX\ manual is simply insufficient. It doesn't even cover putting thin spaces in such simple formulas as \[ {\cal F} = \{\, f_\theta : \theta \in \Theta \,\} \] and \[ \int f \, d\mu \] or the double quad space in \[ \theta_i \le \theta_{i+1}, \qquad i = 1, \ldots, n-1. \] In article <2286@csc.anu.oz> myb100@csc.anu.oz replies: > (meekly) Excuse me, on page 52 of LLs LaTeX manaul is a section entitled > 3.3.7 Spacing in Math mode ... Oops. I guess "simply insufficient" is overstrong. One of the three examples here is covered on p. 52 of the LaTeX manual. It is true though, that anyone who has any serious math to typeset had better read the TeXbook (or the AMS TeX manual I suppose). How about the other two examples? And there are dozens of others. The point is that it's not enough to know that you can put some space wherever you want, you need to know where you should put space and exactly how much.
dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Donald Hosek) (05/17/89)
In article <1431@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: >It is true though, that anyone who has any serious math to typeset had >better read the TeXbook (or the AMS TeX manual I suppose). How about the >other two examples? And there are dozens of others. The point is >that it's not enough to know that you can put some space wherever you want, >you need to know where you should put space and exactly how much. The cases where one needs to insert extra spacing are rare enough that one can avoid not knowing how or where to use things like \, etc. This is why in my LaTeX courses, I don't even touch on spacing other than for special cases like where one uses \qquad. Extra spacing should be added by the editor of the final copy rather than the author. I read (I think in TeXline) that some journals find it more economical to re-key articles than try and deal with author-supplied manuscripts which are rife with all sorts of spurious fine-tuning! -dh
cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) (05/18/89)
In article <1431@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > The point is that it's not enough to know that you can put some space > wherever you want, you need to know where you should put space and exactly > how much. May I suggest that such knowledge is outside the scope of the LaTeX manual? The manual is supposed to be a guide to the features of the program. As such, it is entirely appropriate for it to stop at telling you how to put space wherever you want. *Where* such spaces should go seems to me to be the province of a manual on "typesetting theory", something the LaTeX manual never claimed to be. Anyone have a good suggestion for a "theory" manual? -- Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin, Chris Jarocha-Ernst UUCP: {ames, cbosgd, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje ARPA: JAROCHAERNST@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (05/18/89)
In article <1292@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dhosek@jarthur.UUCP (Donald Hosek) writes: > The cases where one needs to insert extra spacing are rare enough that one > can avoid not knowing how or where to use things like \, etc. This is why > in my LaTeX courses, I don't even touch on spacing other than for special > cases like where one uses \qquad. Extra spacing should be added by the editor > of the final copy rather than the author. I read (I think in TeXline) that > some journals find it more economical to re-key articles than try and deal > with author-supplied manuscripts which are rife with all sorts of spurious > fine-tuning! Fine for journal articles and textbooks, but how about preprints, tech reports, camera ready copy? Given that there are only a few instances where TeX needs spacing specification -- before the differential in an integral, inside the braces of a set specifier, between a formula and a condition, and perhaps a few others -- there is no reason that anyone who regularly typesets mathematics should not learn them. Your objection has nothing whatsoever to do with mathematics. Most people on encountering TeX or LaTeX for the first time simply cannot accept that the program knows how to typeset copy better than they do. They want to make all sorts of adjustments, not just to the mathematics, but to lists, headings, figures and tables, and so forth. Many people eventually learn to let the program do it it's own way. Some people don't have that much self restraint. The just have to fiddle. No manuscript should ever be "rife with all sorts of spurious fine-tuning." If absolutely necessary, there should be just a few novelties, which are implemented by macros so they are done with complete uniformity throughout the manuscript and can be changed by redefining the macros. I don't think we disagree about the big picture, just about the fine points of mathematics typing, which brings me back to my original point. Anyone interested in TeX and mathematics should read chapters 16 - 19 of the TeXbook.
tbrakitz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Byron Rakitzis) (05/18/89)
In article <1436@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: > >In article <1292@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dhosek@jarthur.UUCP >(Donald Hosek) writes: > >> of the final copy rather than the author. I read (I think in TeXline) that >> some journals find it more economical to re-key articles than try and deal >> with author-supplied manuscripts which are rife with all sorts of spurious >> fine-tuning! > >but to lists, headings, figures and tables, and so forth. Many people >eventually learn to let the program do it it's own way. Some people >don't have that much self restraint. The just have to fiddle. > Well, I don't know about y'all, but I certainly learned my TeX by "fiddling". (That should be `fiddling' ! :-) ) In any case, the answer isn't the avoidance of all "spurious" control sequences, but rather the rigorous implementation of user-defined control sequences. That is an ugly turn of phrase. What I meant by it was: (like Humpty Dumpty!) "If you're going to fiddle, put all your `fiddly' control sequences in \def statements at the top, and stay away from TeX primitives (even plain TeX `primitives') inside the body of a document." This way, in the worst case the editor can \let all your macros \relax, so to speak. Knuth himself warned against the practice of repeatedly using primitives (in the TeXbook, somewhere close to the beginning). If you need to make a macro for sets or the infinitessimal in the integral, do something like: \def\setbraces#1{\{\,#1\,\}} or \def\dtheta{\,d \theta} or whatever catches your fancy. You'll probably find your manuscript to be much more `readable' (i.e., easy to take in at a glance. Is there a word for that? I don't think `legible' quite fits the bill, does it?) as a result. Cheers. -- "C Code." "C Code run." "Run, Code, run!" Byron Rakitzis. (tbrakitz@phoenix.princeton.edu ---- tbrakitz@pucc.bitnet)