We can currently mark up the defining occurrence of the verbalization of a symbol with \definiendum or \definame. That takes care of all symbols that have verbalizations. But there are symbols (e.g. \UnionCollection from smglom/sets/source/union.en.tex) that do not have verbalizations. For those we can only use the \begin{sdefinition}[for=UnionCollection} mechanism, which is a bit coarse (it only says "what definition", not "where in that definition", which could inform presentational semantic services).
I am not sure that the best way of doing this is, but I could imagine that a \symdef{foo} and \notation{foo} defines a new macro \foo*, which expands exactly like \foo, only that it marks the occurrence as defining.
We currently have (and use) the \defeq and \fundefeq symbols that "do the right thing", but not at the sTeX level that I am calling for here. We could also use the \definiendum function differently in math mode. Then \foo* from above would be an abbreviation of \definiendum{foo}\foo.
Jazzpirate
commented
2 years ago
We can currently mark up the defining occurrence of the verbalization of a symbol with
\definiendumor\definame. That takes care of all symbols that have verbalizations. But there are symbols (e.g.\UnionCollectionfromsmglom/sets/source/union.en.tex) that do not have verbalizations. For those we can only use the\begin{sdefinition}[for=UnionCollection}mechanism, which is a bit coarse (it only says "what definition", not "where in that definition", which could inform presentational semantic services).I am not sure that the best way of doing this is, but I could imagine that a
\symdef{foo}and\notation{foo}defines a new macro\foo*, which expands exactly like\foo, only that it marks the occurrence as defining.We currently have (and use) the
\defeqand\fundefeqsymbols that "do the right thing", but not at the sTeX level that I am calling for here. We could also use the\definiendumfunction differently in math mode. Then\foo*from above would be an abbreviation of\definiendum{foo}\foo.