Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> 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.
If this bug is marked invalid, I think we ought to have huge warning
signs somewhere. I think the bug has a good point about the current
behavior being confusing to a new user. I do like the convenience the
current approach affords.
Jason
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
