>> 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.
Whether f_x or df/dx is used is usually something I choose depending
on the context; I wouldn't want Maxima or TeX to choose that for me.
TeX does know that df/dx is the same as
df
--,
dx
though, and chooses which to use depending on whether the formula is
inline or not. Should df/dx be used in a displayed equation, or
df
--
dx
be used inline? Usually not, I would think; and I doubt that Maxima
should be making a different choice.
If desired, TeX could be told about f_x, df/dx and
df
--,
dx
and choose among them based on different criteria; if that criteria
included available space in the typeset document or somesuch, I would
think that TeX would be in a better position to decide than Maxima.
(Of course, Maxima would have to give more structure to TeX to work
with, but I would think TeX should make the decision.)
While discussing the (known) shortcomings of TeX is kinda fun (I'm
certainly not suggesting we stop), but I'm wondering what the point
is. I don't think anyone is suggesting TeX support be discontinued,
or that TeX output be the standard output. It's just one of many
different output forms Maxima can handle. The more, the merrier.
Jay