Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for \aa, \AA, \lq, \rq, \lbrack, \rbrack #1069

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 16, 2018

Conversation

edemaine
Copy link
Member

@edemaine edemaine commented Jan 16, 2018

The lack of \aa and \AA was reported in #1066. Added these via simple macros, with supporting tests.

Also add \lq, \rq, \lbrack, \rbrack as aliases for "`", ', [, ] which were in the same area of latex.ltx.

The lack of \aa and \AA was reported in KaTeX#1066.  Added these
via simple macros, with supporting tests.  Also add \lq, \rq,
\lbrack, \rbrack as aliases for "`", "'", "[", "]" which were
in the same area of latex.ltx.
Copy link
Member

@kevinbarabash kevinbarabash left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@kevinbarabash kevinbarabash merged commit a32f82a into KaTeX:master Jan 16, 2018
@edemaine
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the typo fix, and quick review!

@kevinbarabash
Copy link
Member

@edemaine thanks for adding all of these commands.

@ronkok
Copy link
Collaborator

ronkok commented Feb 1, 2018

I realize that I'm late here, but I want to point out that \lbrack and \rbrack were supported by KaTeX before this PR.
lbrack

@kevinbarabash
Copy link
Member

@ronkok good catch. Since there are multiple ways to define things, we might want to have some sort of central dictionary of all the commands regardless of whether they were defined as a symbol, function, macro, or environment. In LaTeX, if you have something that you've defined as a command and then you redefine it as something else, like a color or a length, is LaTeX cool with that?

@kevinbarabash
Copy link
Member

Anyway, the goal of having a central lookup would be to provide a way to audit for duplicates so that we're not shipping code we don't have to.

@ronkok
Copy link
Collaborator

ronkok commented Feb 1, 2018

Well, I caught it because I was updating the function support page and found that those two functions were already there. So in a sense, the function support page already serves as a low tech dictionary. No doubt you're looking for something more robust.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants