[Om] Referencing OM symbols in text

[Professor James Davenport]

On Fri, March 1, 2013 5:26 pm, Lars Hellström wrote:
> David Carlisle skrev 2013-03-01 15.33:
>> On 01/03/2013 13:46, Lars Hellström wrote:
> gamma at nums1     ("email style"?)
> nums1#gamma     (URI style)
> nums1.gamma     (Popcorn style?)
[unsnip]
I find email style confusing. Both of the otehr two I am happy with,
though URI style is marginally preferable to my taste.
I also think that one should only drop the CD# is it is explicitly stated
that one is only handling one CD, e.g. my (hypothetical) paper
"Relations beteen symbols in the transc1 CD".
> [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.
i TEND to use \texttt myself, I admit.
> On the other hand, I could be damaged from writing too many .dtx files.
Don't think so.


James Davenport
Lecturer on XX10190, CM30070, XX40211, and CM20215
Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology, University of Bath
SW Regional Co-ordinator, Computing at School NoE
OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor
IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication
Engineering & Science Board, Council of the British Computer Society
Director of Studies, HPC Doctoral Taught Course Centre
Federal Council, International Foundation for Computational Logic