I see that there is a set_name method in the symbol class and was wondering if there is a reason there is no set_TeX_name() method? I have a situation where I would like to declare a number of symbols, all using the default constructor, but then would like to set the TeX string of these symbols later. It seems like this implementation would work fine: void set_TeX_name(const std::string & n) { TeX_name = n; } Attached is a patch, if this implementation seems reasonable. I'm not sure whether TeX_name should be mutable or not, it seems like perhaps it also should be? Thanks, Luke -- “People call me a perfectionist, but I'm not. I'm a rightist. I do something until it's right, and then I move on to the next thing.” ― James Cameron
I'm sure this is low priority, but I was hoping somebody could respond regarding whether adding set_TeX_name() to the symbol class makes sense, and whether the TeX_name member should be mutable just like name member is. Thanks, Dale
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:40:43 -0800, Dale Lukas Peterson <hazelnusse@gmail.com> said:
DL> I'm sure this is low priority, but I was hoping somebody could DL> respond regarding whether adding set_TeX_name() to the symbol DL> class makes sense, and whether the TeX_name member should be DL> mutable just like name member is. Just as a suggestion: instead of an introduction of a separate method set_TeX_name(), may be simpler to modify set_name() to have an optional second argument for the Tex name (similar to the symbol() method). -- Vladimir V. Kisil email: kisilv@maths.leeds.ac.uk www: http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~kisilv/ Book: Geometry of Mobius Transformations http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p835
participants (2)
-
Dale Lukas Peterson
-
Vladimir V. Kisil