The line
i(x,y,z,t) = \delta(x-\ell_x(z)) \delta(y-\ell_y(z)) \hat{\imath}(\xi(z),t)

produces (for my eyes, at least) too little space between the successive function calls. It is difficult to visually distinguish the three calls. I guess the underlying reason is that the expressions that serve as function arguments are relatively long. For comparison,
i(x,y,z,t) = \delta(x) \delta(y) \hat{\imath}(\xi(z),t)

already looks a lot better in my opinion.
I know that I could
- Manually adjust spacing using
\,etc., including the option to define a macro that does this automatically. - Insert
\cdotas a means of adding seperating space.
However, my question is: Is there a canonical way (e.g. a package) of dealing with this problem? I imagine I'm not the first one to encounter this problem... still, I wasn't able to find useful, general solutions to the problem.
A possible solution might be something along the lines of
i(x,y,t) = \delta \funcargs{x-\ell_x(z)} \delta \funcargs{y-\ell_y(z)} \hat{\imath} \funcargs{\xi(z)}{t}
Note that I find the use of \cdot to be unsatisfying since it introduces inconsistency in the document (sometimes having the dot and sometimes not, with the meaning being the same).




\,or\;to add more space. – skpblack Nov 03 '14 at 14:39\mathinner{...}s? – morbusg Nov 03 '14 at 14:49\mathinner, no space would be inserted between it and\mathclose, but\thinmuskipwould be inserted between it and\mathpunct. – morbusg Nov 03 '14 at 14:56\,still seems simpler) – Steven B. Segletes Nov 03 '14 at 14:57\mathinner. Thanks for the hint, going to research that right now. – Eike P. Nov 03 '14 at 14:58\mathinnerdoes exactly what I want! If you add a short answer, I'll accept it. – Eike P. Nov 03 '14 at 15:24)as function argument delimiter if you don't mark it in some way. My preferred way for avoiding ambiguities (if any) would be\cdot. – egreg Nov 03 '14 at 16:11