# [Om] Referencing OM symbols in text

Lars Hellström Lars.Hellstrom at residenset.net
Fri Mar 1 18:26:55 CET 2013

David Carlisle skrev 2013-03-01 15.33:
> On 01/03/2013 13:46, Lars Hellström wrote:
[snip]
>
> Probably now I'd omit the cd name if it is deducible from the context
> otherwise if I was using (say) popcorn syntax for all the expressions
> I'd go with that, or if most expressions are informal or in conventional
> math style but you just want to refer to the OM symbol probably I'd use
> the # form.

The case I'm primarily faced with right now is that of referring to a symbol
in isolation, i.e., not as part of a larger formula. Thus more like:

U+00D7 (MULTIPLICATION SIGN) serves for both set1#cartesian_product
and as variant of arith1#times, whereas linalg1#vectorproduct at least
in principle has the separate code point U+2A2F (VECTOR OR CROSS
PRODUCT).

>>
>> Anyone wants to share any thoughts on what might be preferable, and
>> why? And how would one format these things? Is it for example:
>>
>> \texttt{gamma at nums1} \texttt{gamma}@\texttt{nums1}
>> \texttt{nums1\#gamma} \texttt{nums1}\#\texttt{gamma}
>> \texttt{nums1.gamma} $\mathrm{nums1.gamma}$
>
> I don't think you need monospace \mathrm seems a good choice

\texttt stresses "computing object" nature of the symbol, whereas \mathrm
would stress the "mathematical object" nature. In a formula it is natural
that the latter takes precedence, but here I would rather like to stress the
former. No special formatting looks fine in email (the long word with # in
the middle sets it apart enough), but I fear it might look a bit feeble in
print.

On the other hand, I could be damaged from writing too many .dtx files. :-)

Lars Hellström