There is another equivalent package already which addresses these issues which I haven't found yet.Try to re-write the few macros I use most often, but better (I doubt my implementation would be great).Keep on using physics and hope the macros are improved (unlikely?).I am curious to know what people think good alternatives are? Off the top of my head: (I am sure there are likely more unfavourable reviews of the package out there). My best advice is to keep at arm's length from physics, egreg.Considering the quality of the implementation, the best way to fix this issue is by not using the physics package, Henri Menke.Because of this, whenever I (or others) post a problem that involves the package, a frequent theme is to give physics a wide berth: It makes use of \xparse which can give several spacing issues (these are usually edge cases but aren't too uncommon), and the syntax can be counter-intuitive. The physics package is unpopularÄespite the advantages I've listed from using the package, there are some short comings. I think it's safe to say it fills a gap in the market. It also makes typesetting vector calculus, ordinary/partial/variational derivatives, linear algebra (bra-ket notation and matrices), and other areas much less painful. \sin, \abs, etc.), it also makes a few abbreviations very convenient (e.g. Aside from it overloading several standard commands (e.g. A lot of my LaTeX documents make heavy use of the physics package.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |