blob: 16aeed1b781f896210991d078384ca831fb43f80 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
|
\centerline{\bf Too many braces take a belting}
\smallskip
\noindent
For some good reason, which now escapes, I had cause recently to look
something up in number 7 of this series; thus proving that it is fulfilling its
destiny as a standard work of reference. As I was browsing through my eye
lighted on the review of a software package called Formulator. The exact
nature of this package is of no consequence to my remarks but its pertinent
property is that it produces `software-written' \TeX\ code for, as the name
suggests, mathematical formulas. The reviewer points out that it has a
number of eccentricities in its use of braces: for example, a tendency to
surround many subformulas with unnecessary braces but to omit them in some
places where they are essential. The problems caused by the latter are
explained in some detail, as is one change in the expected typography caused
by the insertion of an empty pair of braces. The rest are categorized as `No
bad thing'.
I would argue that all such extra braces are not simply superfluous but are
possible causes of incorrect typesetting of a nature which is particularly
disturbing in a system which is presumably aimed at a class of user who is
less likely than some to notice these errors since they largely affect those
details of spacing in formulas of which most readers and producers of
mathematical texts are blissfully unaware.
The cause of the errors occasioned by these braces is the fact that any
subformula enclosed in braces (even an empty one) is an atom of type
(flavour) Ord (see p.\ 291 of {\sl The \TeX book}) whatever its contents may
be. Thus, choosing examples at random from the review: |{\left( ... \right)}|
appears to the neighbouring atoms to be an Ord instead of its correct
identity which is Inner; |{\int ...}|, |{\sum ...}| and |{\sin ...}| all change
from Op to Ord. A glance at the table on p.\ 270 of {\sl The \TeX book\/} will
reveal the havoc which such changes can wreak to the subtleties of spacing
revealed therein.
Thus I am led to the conclusion that either the code-writing part of this
software contains a fundamental design flaw or this software is not intended
to produce high-quality \TeX-code and is therefore not intended for use in
high-quality typesetting software.
Of course, it is just possible that it is merely another piece of evidence in
favour of the thesis that the \wysiwyg\slash Graphical Interface\slash {\sc
wimp} paradigm is fundamentally at odds with high-quality anything.
\rightline{\sl Chris Rowley}
|
