4 ms·
You do realize that typing such things generally assumes to include a way of replacing text sequences by characters? Instead of typing W_δ₁ρ₁σ₂ you can just as
by ygra 9y ago
You do realize that typing such things generally assumes to include a way of replacing text sequences by characters? Instead of typing W_δ₁ρ₁σ₂ you can just as well write W_(\delta_1 \rho_1 \sigma_2), which brings it much closer to LaTeX again, if that's your thing. I find the Unicode version much easier to read, though, especially since it contains little markup beyond the actual characters appearing in the equation. And just to add a counterpoint to your experience here, I found this format to be much easier to type than LaTeX with fewer errors, even going as far as typing along on the fly in some math lectures in uni. There might just be a lot of bias what someone is used to and comfortable with.
- doomrobo 9y agoFair enough. Although I'm curious what text editors would support non-trivial text replacement like \delta_1. For example, Vim abbreviations apply on word boundaries (things followed by space or punctuation). So to make \delta_n work you'd have to have a separate abbreviation for each digit n. Then do this for every single thing that can be subscripted. To be fair, though, this works fine and seems pretty usable :ab _1 <BS>₁ This does a backspace before the replacement, so it transforms `foo _1.` into `foo₁.`
- ygra 9y agoThe subscript replacements are not really needed, I was more talking about turning \delta into δ. Word itself doesn't replace the subscripts and I found the sub-/superscript characters more a nuisance to work with (as they bind stronger than _/^ I think). But having characters that exist in Unicode appear as themselves instead of things like \delta or, worse, \mathbb N, imho really helps legibility already.