Martin RUBEY wrote:
> I strongly disagree with the idea not to use TeX and instead produce
> Postscript: This would imply that I would have to retype the whole thing
> to get it properly into my article. I find it easier to adjust output
> rather than to retype it!
I agree
Furthermore, why do you think it would be easier
> for maxima to do the formatting?
I disagree.
Maxima knows that diff(f,x) semantically, could be displayed
as
f
x
or df/dx
or
df
----
dx
This info is not available to TeX. If it sees one of these forms
it does not know that it is a derivative, and that this can be
displayed conventionally in various ways.
After all, quite some years went into the
> TeX development, I would find it rather sad to reinvent the wheel. I do
> not understand why it would be easier for maxima to decide how to break
> lines than for TeX. It is probably that maxima knows better to *rewrite*
> stuff, i.e. write
>
> (a+b+c)/(x+y+z)
>
> instead of
>
> a+b+c
> -----
> x+y+z
>
> but in this case, maxima could just provide both forms and let TeX decide
> which fits nicer on the paper...
>
The number of possible forms makes the size of the expression sent to
TeX grow exponentially.
For each letter in the above, say b,
let b=r^s, where r and s are expressions.
Allow TeX to chose
s
r
or expt(r,s).
a combinatorial explosion...
RJF
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima@www.math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima