Hi,
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:11:39 -0300
Golam Mortuza Hossain <gmhoss...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Jason: I am attaching the patch for enhancing typesetting of
> functions. I need to add doc-tests though. In the patch, I have
> implemented all the situations that I planned to do.
>
> Apart from the situations I mentioned earlier, it now also
> supports following types of function name (single letters with
> suffixes)
> ---------------
> (6) function('f1',x) => f_{1}\left(x\right)
>
> (7) function('T_sigma',x) => T_{\sigma}\left(x\right)
>
> (8) function('R_ab',x) => R_{ab}\left(x\right)
> ----------------
Can you outline what are the differences between your new
latex_function_name() and the already existing latex_variable_name() in
sage.misc.latex?
The doc string of latex_variable_name() explains what it does clearly:
1. If the variable is a single letter, that is the latex version.
2. If the variable name is suffixed by a number, we put the number
in the subscript.
3. If the variable name contains an '_' we start the subscript at
the underscore. Note that #3 trumps rule #2.
4. If a component of the variable is a greek letter, escape it
properly.
5. Recurse nicely with subscripts.
How is your function different, apart from the fact that you don't
process suffixes recursively?
Thanks.
Burcin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
