On Mar 18, 1:48 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Jason Grout > > <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > > > John H Palmieri wrote: > >> On Mar 18, 1:53 am, Martin Albrecht <m...@informatik.uni-bremen.de> > >> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday 17 March 2009, William Stein wrote: > > >> In response to William, I think \QQbar makes sense, but I'm not sure > >> about CDF: Carl had good questions about it, and besides, it's not > >> standard mathematical notation. I don't know which other ones from > >> rings/all.py you had in mind. > > 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.
This is a very interesting idea, and I think I can do it for ZZ, QQbar, etc., but I don't know how to deal with GF(p). That is, in docstrings, you presumably want GF(p) to appear as is, while to evaluate latex(GF(p)), indeed to evaluate GF(p), p has to be an actual integer. Any ideas how to use the _latex_ method for GF() to typeset 'GF(p)' for p a variable or a string? John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
