[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Re: @math in manual

**From**: |
Karl Berry |

**Subject**: |
Re: @math in manual |

**Date**: |
Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:00:27 -0500 |

Here it is. Wording is bad, but everything is there...
Thanks Patrice. I'll append my revised version. One thing I left out,
since I didn't understand:
Lone braces @address@hidden and @address@hidden do not trigger errors in
@code{@@math}.
makeinfo complains about @math{foo}} for me, since of course it thinks
the argument is "foo", leaving a spurious }. It also complains about
@math{{foo}. What mismatched-brace input were you seeing that went through?
Thanks,
Karl
...
The @code{@@math} command has no special effect on the Info and HTML
output. @command{makeinfo} expands any @code{@@}-commands as usual,
but it does not try to produce good mathematical formatting in any
way.
Plain @TeX{} commands are allowed in @code{@@math}. This allows you
to conveniently write superscripts and subscripts (as in the above
example), and also to use all the plain @TeX{} math control sequences
for symbols, functions, and so on, and thus get proper formatting in
the @TeX{} output, at least.
That is, as far as the @TeX{} output is concerned, @samp{\} is an
escape character inside @code{@@math}, and in fact it's best to use
@samp{\} instead of @samp{@@} for any such mathematical commands;
otherwise, @command{makeinfo} will complain.
Here's an example:
...

**Re: @math in manual**,
*Karl Berry* **<=**