Closed martin-henz closed 1 month ago
We seem to be missing the leading backslashes of
\Theta
and\Omega
.Can we also add a check to the CI workflow?
We seem to be missing the leading backslashes of
\Theta
and\Omega
.Can we also add a check to the CI workflow?
The backslashes wouldn't lead to a good output. We could escape these things by saying ^$\Theta$^ to get a nice PDF.
But then the json output for autocomplete would look really ugly (unless we do some more magic). Also jsdoc would look bad.
So at the moment, docs/lib/list.js is used for:
and we just tolerate a "Theta" appearing everywhere, to keep things simple.
We seem to be missing the leading backslashes of
\Theta
and\Omega
.Can we also add a check to the CI workflow?
Hi Prof @martin-henz, I've fixed these, though I can't check as I don't have LaTeX installed locally. Could you verify that it's correct now?
Edit: Didn't see the above comment
So at the moment, docs/lib/list.js is used for:
- jsdocs
- autocomplete
and we just tolerate a "Theta" appearing everywhere, to keep things simple.
Replacing Θ
with ϴ
works nicely in JSDoc. How about the others?
So at the moment, docs/lib/list.js is used for:
- jsdocs
- autocomplete
and we just tolerate a "Theta" appearing everywhere, to keep things simple.
Replacing
Θ
withϴ
works nicely in JSDoc. How about the others?
The file list.js is currently attached verbatim (using lstlisting in LaTeX) to source_2.pdf.
That means it will look ugly (illegible).
On the longer run, we should find a way to attach list.js in a nicer way to source_2.pdf.
I suggest we go ahead with just "Theta" (and make an issue) for now.
I suggest we go ahead with just "Theta" (and make an issue) for now.
Made the issue in #1705
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8966713762
Details
💛 - Coveralls