Am 05.08.2016 um 21:11 schrieb Richard Heck:
When Georg added the ability to assign HTML entities to global math
macros, as cc87f810, a comment in the code said:
syntax: Either
\def\macroname{definition}
or
\def\macroname{definition} requires
or
\def\macroname{definition} requires xmlname
or
\def\macroname{definition} extra xmlname requires
This led me to do something silly, when I tried to add xmlenties for e.g.
\coloneeqq. The line was:
\def\coloneqq{\vcentcolon\kern-7mu=} mathtools
and I changed it to:
\def\coloneqq{\vcentcolon\kern-7mu=} mathtools ≔
But now that is wrong, and the line has to be:
\def\coloneqq{\vcentcolon\kern-7mu=} "" ≔ mathtools
Might it not make more sense to have the options be:
\def\macroname{definition}
\def\macroname{definition} requires
\def\macroname{definition} requires xmlname
\def\macroname{definition} requires xmlname extra
??
Hi Richard,
the complete file format of lib/symbols needs a redesign. We have
different line formats (for fonts, for \def, for special insets etc)
which are more or less independent of each other. The inconsistent order
in the \def format was chosen for backward compatibility reasons with
old files (since the file format is not versioned). I have no idea if
this is needed or not, if it is not needed it would be easy to make the
order consistent. My feeling is that we should rather think towards
merging the information in lib/symbols and lib/unicodesymbols (it
overlaps partly) than to change smal things in either of these files.
This does of course also depend on how mathed develops further.
So far as I can see, the fourth of these, in whichever version, is never
used in the existing code.
This was added because the macro machinery did support it already.
Georg
PS: I am back from vacation, slowly catching up with messages.
PS2: Why is the original message not on gmane?
