The code a_x_y is undefined in pdflatex, it could mean a_{x_y}, {a_x}_y, a_{xy}, or a_x{}_y.
Is there a way to define a_x_y as a_{xy} by default, as is in XeTex?
Asked
Active
Viewed 48 times
0
Alois Pichler
- 133
Is there a way to define a_{xy} as default, as is in XeTex?? – daleif Aug 30 '23 at 08:44$a_x_y_$is same with PDFLaTeX, XeLaTeX and even PDFTeX or XeTeX: “Double subscript” error. So your questionn is very unclear. – cabohah Aug 30 '23 at 08:50$a_{xy}$is the least intuitive meaning of$a_x_y$. I've never seen such an interpretation before. But this is only an opinion. – cabohah Aug 30 '23 at 08:55\mathcal{F}_{1x}(the sheaf\mathcal{F}_1stalked atx). Ideally, you would like such constructions to be macro-based, but this becomes hard due to multiple subscripts. If you define e.g.\newcommand\stalk[2]{#1_{#2}}and\newcommand\sheafFone{\mathcal{F}_1}, then\stalk{\sheafFone}{x}fails miserably. In this case, indeed, allowing multiple subscripts to be stacked would improve the situation significantly. And yes, I think the syntax would be entirely intuitive. – Gaussler Aug 30 '23 at 09:13_with its subscript meaning, of course you could make it active and do the parsing "by hand" but that will break some things. – David Carlisle Aug 30 '23 at 09:29$a_{x_y}$or${a_x}_y$, IMHO the question explain itself why define double subscripts to make something, other than a error, is not a good idea, even if this make harder the use of some macros. – Fran Aug 30 '23 at 09:59