2:49 PM
@Kasper Just noticed your question on the main site. Following our discussion I've been watching myself using unicode in writing an article. I'm getting to the point where I'm considering the experiment over and that it isn't worth the hassle. The gain in "readable source code" is - for me - a myth. LaTeX is already readable enough and the unreadable parts are not made more readable by using unicode symbols. The problem is that not everything is covered by unicode ...
... and so there is a mish-mash of unicode and macros which actually makes it less readable as there isn't a consistent style. Here are some samples to show what I mean:
So here we have a mixture of super and subscripts. Some can be represented by unicode symbols, some can't. Now, it may be that
^k
can be and I just didn't get the right input for it, but ^{k-j}
can't, nor can _{k=0}
. Moreover, the ⁿ
seems to get a little lost against the crowd.
In this one, again there's a macro
\dotsc
which looks out of place. Also, that ψ
is a little tricky to differentiate from φ
.
1 hour later…
3:56 PM
@AndrewStacey I understand what you mean. But I don't think that unicode will ever cover everything, and I don't think it should. I think it would be better to have an editor that supports more opentype layout features.
@Kasper Which is my point: since unicode can't cover everything, it is worth thinking carefully about what it should cover (when using it in an editor, I mean, not what should be in the unicode character set). Based on my recent trials, I'm going for leaving it out of mathematics all together. When writing, it becomes distracting and I'd rather than my editor kept all distractions out of my way (I use a monospaced font, for example).
@Kasper Well, no. It's hard for me to read the symbol you've used for
\to
(I suspect it is actually \implies
). Indeed, I would say that x \le 2 \implies y \ge 3
is more readable in part due to the fact that \implies
is spelled out. So I'm writing my mathematics by concentrating on what the mathematics means instead of how it should appear.
4:22 PM
@Kasper Consistency is not a reason for doing anything. Consistency is a "when everything else has been taken into account, I'll be consistent". Certain symbols are easy to type because they are readily accessible on any keyboard and for those, I'll use the symbols. But my point is that due to the vast enormity of symbols one has to draw a line between using symbols and using names. Exactly where that line is drawn will largely be a matter of taste and experience.
4:38 PM
@AndrewStacey But you said that you draw the line at not using unicode at all, because there isn't an consistent style.. But I don't understand this, because you don't have an consistent style now either. I don't understand that you (and every other mathematician I spoke about this) don't seem to see any value in those unicode symbols. Ok, supersscript, subscripts, that I understand, but I think that symbols like ≤,≥, would be improvement anyway in the long end, and make the code more consistent.
@Kasper I said that for me, I would draw the line in mathematics at "what I can easily type with my keyboard" so if it's ascii, I'll use it, if not, I won't. That doesn't mean I don't see the value in unicode! The point is that my source code is mine (and my collaborators', which is not a negligible consideration) and so I can write it how I like. I've gotten used to a certain way of writing and changing it requires evidence of how it makes life better for me (ctd)
@Kasper Because either I had to set it to convert
\le
(note the space) or had to keep correcting it when it converted \leftarrow
to ≤ftarrow
. So it's easier for me to not bother with converting to unicode. It is, though, nice to know that if I had something that already used unicode then I wouldn't have to convert it back.
In effect, I'm saying that unicode is (for me) more of an output format than an input format. My keyboard constrains me to type in ascii (more or less, it's a norwegian keyboard so I get åøæ as well). Any system for using unicode means that I have to have something that converts the ascii that I type on my keyboard into unicode. TeX already does this just fine, so I have no reason to introduce another step into the chain when I don't get any benefit from it.
@AndrewStacey I was chatting in the math room yesterday, and I've got the feeling that I'm the only mathematician in this whole world who prefers unicode math symbols above latex macros. I understand your reasons now. But I still don't get why not only most mathematician prefer latex macros, but most even seem to be heavily against the use of unicode in latex.
5:17 PM
« first day (2 days earlier) ← previous day last day (15 days later) »