Dear William,
> Why not have some special shortcut so that we can typeset any ring
> using Sage itself. E.g.,
> in answer to your question "what should CDF" typeset as, I answer
>
> sage: latex(CDF)
>
> Then we can argue about what latex(CDF) should be in Sage instead...
> Building the docs could auto-define macros for all the standard
> pre-defined rings by calling Sage and getting the output of the latex
> command.
>
> Then the arguments below about how to typeset GF(p) also disappear (or
> change form) -- just typeset GF(p) as whatever
>
> sage: latex(GF(p))
>
> typesets as.
>
> My proposal has the advantage of consistency in that the typesetting
> in the docs will match the typesetting in sage.
+1
In my opinion, this is a very good idea ! In the last version of its doc
system MuPAD pushed the things even further: the doc was a kind of XML file
with two particular tags <code>...</code> and <math>...</math> which more or
less corresponds to ReST ``...`` and `...`. The point is that in the second
case (mathematics) was typeset by MuPAD itself in a special "no-evaluation"
mode with a special imported symbol module. This was IMHO pushed too far
because typesetting standard things like eg latex \dots was a pain.
But I like very much the idea of being able to ask Sage to typeset things (not
only rings name) inside LaTeX for example by a macro \sage{...}.
Cheers,
Florent
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
