On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 12:04:21PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 12:05:11PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Not perfect, but a decent kludge for 1.2.0, I think.
>
> At least we will be able to enter that stuff at all. Much better than we
> had right now.
>
> Andre'
>
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 12:05:11PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Not perfect, but a decent kludge for 1.2.0, I think.
At least we will be able to enter that stuff at all. Much better than we
had right now.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz .. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 10:24:22AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Martin> Mathed does not do this. It simply intercepts the dead-keys,
> Martin> and if a corresponding decoration is defined, it puts it there
> Martin> and (w
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 10:24:22AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Martin> Mathed does not do this. It simply intercepts the dead-keys,
> Martin> and if a corresponding decoration is defined, it puts it there
> Martin> and (with the patch I earlier submitted) places the "stripped"
> Martin> c
> "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Mathed does not do this. It simply intercepts the dead-keys,
Martin> and if a corresponding decoration is defined, it puts it there
Martin> and (with the patch I earlier submitted) places the "stripped"
Martin> character under i
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 11:03:58AM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Translating LFUN_UMLAUT -> \ddot etc. etc. is elegant and I really
> would like to have it.
Aehm.. that works since Friday: Try 'M-x accent-umlaut x'. This gives
'\ddot{x}'
> Note that simply not handling the dead-keys doesn't he
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 08:58:23AM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:04:20PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:35:15PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ok. So \ddot{o} is not too bad.
> >>>
> >>\textit{o-umlaut} (s
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 10:31:30PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> The probably best solution would be to have a \mbox inset or so, inside
> of which things behave like in a text inset, Umlauts and all. There is
> no easy fix here and now, I think.
A proper mbox inset is currently impossible to im
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 08:58:23AM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
> maybe, that I miss something ...
> but why was it so easy in 1.1.6??
I don't know. I never really understood the 1.1.6 code. But I seem to
remember some convoluted code near the place where character input was
handled... maybe that w
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:04:20PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:35:15PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>
>>>Ok. So \ddot{o} is not too bad.
>>>
>>\textit{o-umlaut} (sorry can't actually type the character in this
>>combination of terminal type and
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:04:20PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:35:15PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Ok. So \ddot{o} is not too bad.
>
> \textit{o-umlaut} (sorry can't actually type the character in this
> combination of terminal type and editor) would be an option, I'
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:35:15PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:32:12PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > There isn't anything else that I am aware of and that you can get
> > rendered by LaTeX. It just refuses in math mode. Of couse \ddot is
> > double differentiation
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 09:22:25AM +, Jules Bean wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:22:46AM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > (BTW what about a "units" panel? cm, kg, m^3, lb in^{-2}, what not ;-)
>
> Units should use the 'units' package really.
>
> Jules
Yes! This could be made a valida
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:22:46AM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> (BTW what about a "units" panel? cm, kg, m^3, lb in^{-2}, what not ;-)
Units should use the 'units' package really.
Jules
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:04:20PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:35:15PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:32:12PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > There isn't anything else that I am aware of and that you can get
> > > rendered by LaTeX. It jus
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:35:15PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:32:12PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > There isn't anything else that I am aware of and that you can get
> > rendered by LaTeX. It just refuses in math mode. Of couse \ddot is
> > double differentiation
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> What's the right way to write Umlauts in math?
>
> Right now I am using \ddot{o}, since that's what's passed down to mathed.
> But I am not sure that this is ok.
- There are no umlauts in math!
no one in amsmath and no one in math general.
- if we want some text insid
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:32:12PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> There isn't anything else that I am aware of and that you can get
> rendered by LaTeX. It just refuses in math mode. Of couse \ddot is
> double differentiation wrt time. I suppose you just cannot use umlauted
> letters in math.
Ok
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:57:53PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> What's the right way to write Umlauts in math?
>
> Right now I am using \ddot{o}, since that's what's passed down to mathed.
> But I am not sure that this is ok.
>
> Andre'
There isn't anything else that I am aware of and tha
19 matches
Mail list logo
