Am 07.11.2012 00:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Joram Berger writes:
>
>> Am 06.11.2012 22:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Joram Berger writes:
>>>
Hi,
here is another (probably not so well thought) idea:
Issue: \noBeam is a quite long command if used heavily and for the
>>
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:10 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Joram Berger writes:
>> It's no real problem, just wanted to mention it. The idea came up while
>> making a cheat sheet and realizing, that [ and ] have no equally short
>> counterpart.
>
> So the main use case would seem to be a prettier ch
Joram Berger writes:
> Am 06.11.2012 22:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Joram Berger writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here is another (probably not so well thought) idea:
>>>
>>> Issue: \noBeam is a quite long command if used heavily and for the
>>> opposite feature [ and ] represent much more convenie
Am 06.11.2012 22:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Joram Berger writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> here is another (probably not so well thought) idea:
>>
>> Issue: \noBeam is a quite long command if used heavily and for the
>> opposite feature [ and ] represent much more convenient solutions.
>>
>> Possible solu
Joram Berger writes:
> Hi,
>
> here is another (probably not so well thought) idea:
>
> Issue: \noBeam is a quite long command if used heavily and for the
> opposite feature [ and ] represent much more convenient solutions.
>
> Possible solution: use X or ; (or any other reasonable token as a
> \
Hi,
here is another (probably not so well thought) idea:
Issue: \noBeam is a quite long command if used heavily and for the
opposite feature [ and ] represent much more convenient solutions.
Possible solution: use X or ; (or any other reasonable token as a
\noBeam equivalent.
Again, this is jus
