Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19442.D539AFAC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:38:50 +0100 x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D539AFAC" x-to: LATEX-L%DHDURZ1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Facilities for chemists. A LaTeX example file. Date: Wed, 24 Oct 1990 19:14:13 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "bbeeton" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 248 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D539AFAC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable in looking at david rhead's chemistry example, i find two distinct notions presented: (a) "the bonds are visually similar to some mathematical symbols" and (b) "they are logically different" why is it necessary to use the existing notation, just because of (a)? why isn't it possible, yea almost trivial!, to define new names and structures for these that are logically distinct? tex, after all, is a powerful macro language -- one of its main, perhaps most important, selling points. i offer another example to illustrate what i'm suggesting. $\vector a$ (or $\vector{a}$ ) assume this will be used only in math mode. if you're a mathematician this becomes \def\vector#1{\vec{#1}} if you're a physicist, it becomes \def\vector#1{{\bf#1}} here the logical notion is the same, but the representation is = different. seems to me that this is what sgml is trying to tell us. teach the user to capture the logic, and let the representation be taken care of behind the scenes. i don't say that the available fonts and structures are adequate for chemistry (they're almost certainly not), but that doesn't mean that suitable new ones can't be constructed. -- bb ------- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D539AFAC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Facilities for chemists. A LaTeX example file.

in looking at david rhead's chemistry example, i find = two distinct
notions presented:
   (a) "the bonds are visually similar = to some mathematical symbols"
and
   (b) "they are logically = different"

why is it necessary to use the existing notation, just = because of (a)?
why isn't it possible, yea almost trivial!, to define = new names and
structures for these that are logically = distinct?  tex, after all, is
a powerful macro language -- one of its main, perhaps = most important,
selling points.

i offer another example to illustrate what i'm = suggesting.
   $\vector a$  (or $\vector{a}$ = )
assume this will be used only in math mode.
if you're a mathematician this becomes
   \def\vector#1{\vec{#1}}
if you're a physicist, it becomes
   \def\vector#1{{\bf#1}}
here the logical notion is the same, but the = representation is different.

seems to me that this is what sgml is trying to tell = us.  teach the
user to capture the logic, and let the representation = be taken care of
behind the scenes.

i don't say that the available fonts and structures = are adequate for
chemistry (they're almost certainly not), but that = doesn't mean that
suitable new ones can't be constructed.
        =         =         =         =         =         -- bb
-------

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D539AFAC--