I have been roused. ;-) Hopefully enough of us will make enough noise that
someone over there will notice.
john perry
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:14:49 PM UTC-6, Bruce Cohen wrote:
>
> I agree this is rude. Please be roused.
>
> -Bruce
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 7:32 AM, john_perry_usm
>
PROGRESS!!
I've actually got a baby version of this working. I'm eager for advice
about how best to polish this and integrate it in a way that isn't as hacky
as this current first attempt is. Here's what I did.
1. The easy part:
In a test document, I run a sagesilent to define a Problem clas
Very impressive, Nathan.
> So, here's some types of advice I'd love to receive on this:
>
> 1. Should I actually be suggesting changes to sagetex.sty? Or is there a
> way to do that in my own .sty file? I couldn't call Dan's ST@stuff
> commands from my own document, because I think TeX @ thi
Here's the reply they sent me:
Mr. Perry,
We are aware of this and it is being worked on now. It should be available
by the first of next week.
Thank you,
Karen
Seems a bit longer than it should take, but it's something. :-)
john perry
On Friday, March 8, 2013 10:51:40 AM UTC-6, john_perry_
Thanks, Karl-Dieter.
I've made a little more progress:
1. Supports solutions now, including different instances of same problem.
2. No more \begin{sageprocesstext}{Problem}, just \begin{sagetext} now;
less clutter.
3. It's a single \include that you put right after \begin{document}, but
you sti
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:18 AM, john_perry_usm wrote:
> Here's the reply they sent me:
>
> Mr. Perry,
>
> We are aware of this and it is being worked on now. It should be available
> by the first of next week.
>
> Thank you,
> Karen
>
> Seems a bit longer than it should take, but it's something.
