On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:32 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>> I would say that latexing x_1 as x_1 is a bug, it should be x\_1
>>>> (probably, haven't looked at what the implications would be
>>>> elsewhere).
>>>>
>>> How would you propose handling the case "x subscript n" (i.e.,
>>> $x_n$)?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand your question, but to be more precise,
>> here's what I'm suggesting:
>>
>> sage: latex(var('x1'))
>> x_{1}
>> sage: latex(var('x_1'))
>> x\_{1}
>
> Sorry for not being clear. I meant to ask how you would propose
> getting
> an output latex of $x_n$. In other words, I would like to explicitly
> tell latex that there is a subscript.
>
> Currently:
>
> sage: latex(var('xn'))
> \mbox{xn}
> sage: latex(var('x_n'))
> x_{n}
>
> How would you propose getting an output like the second command? I
> guess one possibility is that:
>
> sage: latex(var('variable123')) # where 123 could be any number
> variable_{123}
>
> but
>
> sage: latex(var('variable_n'))
> variable_{n}
Good point. Maybe this suggestion isn't the best idea. But I think x1
-> x_1 is too useful to get rid of (and doesn't cause major problems,
if you are mixing x1 and x_1 you are treading on dangerous waters
anyway.
- Robert
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
