On Dec 19, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 December 2007 22:54, Jason Grout wrote:
>> 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}
>
> Jason, I'm not sure from your post if you are aware of this, but
> this is
> exactly the way it currently is coded for exactly the reasons you
> mention.
> This was my design goal when I rewrote some latex'ing code a month
> ago.
>
> x1 -> x_1
> x_1 -> x_1
> x_n -> x_n
> xn -> \text{xn}
> alpha1 -> \alpha_1
>
> etc. (I omitted '{','}' for clutter reduction.)
>
> So, I would summarize Robert and Jason's discussion as agreeing
> that the bug
> is invalid?
Yes.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
