Small typo in calc.texi

Small typo in calc.texi

[Vladimir Nikishkin]

Hello, everyone,

On line 6218, the code @texline @math{\psi(z) (``psi'')},
should probably be @texline @math{\psi(z)} (``psi'')

Could someone fix that?

-- 
Your sincerely,
Vladimir Nikishkin (MiEr, lockywolf)
(Laptop)

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2023 11:45:55 +0800
> 
> On line 6218, the code @texline @math{\psi(z) (``psi'')},
> should probably be @texline @math{\psi(z)} (``psi'')

Thanks, fixed.

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Vladimir Nikishkin]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2023 11:45:55 +0800
>> 
>> On line 6218, the code @texline @math{\psi(z) (``psi'')},
>> should probably be @texline @math{\psi(z)} (``psi'')
>
> Thanks, fixed.

I think I have found one more typo:

in the "Musical Notes" node:

@expr{C_(-1)} corresponds to the midi note number 0

probably should be

@expr{C_{(-1)}} corresponds to the midi note number 0

-- 
Your sincerely,
Vladimir Nikishkin (MiEr, lockywolf)
(Laptop)

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:40:44 +0800
> 
> 
> in the "Musical Notes" node:
> 
> @expr{C_(-1)} corresponds to the midi note number 0
> 
> probably should be
> 
> @expr{C_{(-1)}} corresponds to the midi note number 0

Are you sure?  Texinfo in general doesn't allow unadorned { or }.

What is the problem with @expr{C_(-1)}?

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Vladimir Nikishkin]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:40:44 +0800
>> 
>> 
>> in the "Musical Notes" node:
>> 
>> @expr{C_(-1)} corresponds to the midi note number 0
>> 
>> probably should be
>> 
>> @expr{C_{(-1)}} corresponds to the midi note number 0
>
> Are you sure?  Texinfo in general doesn't allow unadorned { or }.
>
> What is the problem with @expr{C_(-1)}?

What does "unadorned" mean? I think my suggestion uses a couple of
matching curly braces.

The problem with the current code is clearly seen in the pdf output.
Only the first opening parenthesis is the lower index, the rest -1)
are following that C-with-subindex-opening-parenthesis fully sized.

This is a default behaviour for TeX mathematics. I am not sure how
texinfo is different.

-- 
Your sincerely,
Vladimir Nikishkin (MiEr, lockywolf)
(Laptop)

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:10:40 +0800
> 
> >> @expr{C_{(-1)}} corresponds to the midi note number 0
> >
> > Are you sure?  Texinfo in general doesn't allow unadorned { or }.
> >
> > What is the problem with @expr{C_(-1)}?
> 
> What does "unadorned" mean?

The literal characters '{' and '}'.

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Vladimir Nikishkin]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:10:40 +0800
>> 
>> >> @expr{C_{(-1)}} corresponds to the midi note number 0
>> >
>> > Are you sure?  Texinfo in general doesn't allow unadorned { or }.
>> >
>> > What is the problem with @expr{C_(-1)}?
>> 
>> What does "unadorned" mean?
>
> The literal characters '{' and '}'.

I am not a pro on GNU texinfo. I just replaced

@expr{C_(-1)} with @expr{C_{(-1)}}

, despite syntax checker's complaints,
and run make pdf. And the resulting pdf looks the way it should look,
with all of (-1) in the sub-index.

I am not sure if that is the way it should be solved, or it is just a
co-incidence that it works for the pdf output.

-- 
Your sincerely,
Vladimir Nikishkin (MiEr, lockywolf)
(Laptop)

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 21:08:00 +0800
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:10:40 +0800
> >> 
> >> >> @expr{C_{(-1)}} corresponds to the midi note number 0
> >> >
> >> > Are you sure?  Texinfo in general doesn't allow unadorned { or }.
> >> >
> >> > What is the problem with @expr{C_(-1)}?
> >> 
> >> What does "unadorned" mean?
> >
> > The literal characters '{' and '}'.
> 
> I am not a pro on GNU texinfo. I just replaced
> 
> @expr{C_(-1)} with @expr{C_{(-1)}}
> 
> , despite syntax checker's complaints,
> and run make pdf. And the resulting pdf looks the way it should look,
> with all of (-1) in the sub-index.
> 
> I am not sure if that is the way it should be solved, or it is just a
> co-incidence that it works for the pdf output.

What happens in the HTML output?

Anyway, since @expr is just an alias for @math, I guess we need some
TeX expert to help us out here.  Anyone?

Btw, please in the future report any bugs, including these tiny ones,
to bug-gnu-emacs, so that they open an issue that can be tracked.
TIA.

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Gregory Heytings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 666 bytes --]


>>>>> What is the problem with @expr{C_(-1)}?
>>
>> I just replaced
>>
>> @expr{C_(-1)} with @expr{C_{(-1)}}
>>
>> , despite syntax checker's complaints, and run make pdf. And the 
>> resulting pdf looks the way it should look, with all of (-1) in the 
>> sub-index.
>
> Anyway, since @expr is just an alias for @math, I guess we need some TeX 
> expert to help us out here.  Anyone?
>

I have some knowledge of TeX, and ISTM that Vladimir is right: with C_(-1) 
only the opening parenthesis is subscripted, which means that you get 
"C₍-1)", whereas with C_{(-1)} the expression (-1) is subscripted, which 
means that you get "C₍₋₁₎".

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Andreas Schwab]

On Jun 13 2023, Vladimir Nikishkin wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:10:40 +0800
>>> 
>>> >> @expr{C_{(-1)}} corresponds to the midi note number 0
>>> >
>>> > Are you sure?  Texinfo in general doesn't allow unadorned { or }.
>>> >
>>> > What is the problem with @expr{C_(-1)}?
>>> 
>>> What does "unadorned" mean?
>>
>> The literal characters '{' and '}'.
>
> I am not a pro on GNU texinfo. I just replaced
>
> @expr{C_(-1)} with @expr{C_{(-1)}}

I think it is supposed to be @expr{C_{-1}}.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Jens Schmidt]

On 2023-06-13  15:08, Vladimir Nikishkin wrote:

> I am not a pro on GNU texinfo. I just replaced
> 
> @expr{C_(-1)} with @expr{C_{(-1)}}
> 
> , despite syntax checker's complaints, and run make pdf. And the
> resulting pdf looks the way it should look, with all of (-1) in the
> sub-index.

FWIW the Texinfo Manual says about @math:

   The '@sub' and '@sup' commands described in the previous section
   produce subscripts and superscripts in HTML output as well as TeX; the
   plain TeX characters '_' and '^' for subscripts and superscripts are
   recognized by TeX inside '@math', but do nothing special in HTML or
   other output formats.

Maybe that would be an even better option?

Re: Small typo in calc.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 21:39:21 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Jens Schmidt <jens.schmidt140@arcor.de>
> 
> On 2023-06-13  15:08, Vladimir Nikishkin wrote:
> 
> > I am not a pro on GNU texinfo. I just replaced
> > 
> > @expr{C_(-1)} with @expr{C_{(-1)}}
> > 
> > , despite syntax checker's complaints, and run make pdf. And the
> > resulting pdf looks the way it should look, with all of (-1) in the
> > sub-index.
> 
> FWIW the Texinfo Manual says about @math:
> 
>    The '@sub' and '@sup' commands described in the previous section
>    produce subscripts and superscripts in HTML output as well as TeX; the
>    plain TeX characters '_' and '^' for subscripts and superscripts are
>    recognized by TeX inside '@math', but do nothing special in HTML or
>    other output formats.
> 
> Maybe that would be an even better option?

Thanks to all who chimed in and provided useful inputs.

I eventually went with @sub, because that produces better output in
HTML as well, in addition to solving the original problem.

And with that, I'm closing this bug.