-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support asymmetry uncertainties/tolerances #675
Comments
Current thinking on the interface is |
Usually I prefer things to be set explicitly, yet, in this particular case I've used to read/say the number in order (+, then -) and I guess this should be ok for most of the people. So the signs may be omitted. |
Replacement is "input-symmetrical-uncertainty-signs". This will be needed to address #675.
OK, current thinking is
These two will let me cover the 'compact' input form, but I am still wondering about the 'long' form: I am wondering whether to go with just 'compact' for v3.3 and see what extensions make sense for v3.4: thoughts? |
I think that having the short form will be amazing by itself and propose not to wait for the long form. As for the long form, I do not know what it actually means. In case it means multiple groups of asymmetric uncertainties, the thing is used much more rare, at least in my field. Thus, again, I do not think you need to wait to provide both the features in the same version. |
@maxfl The 'long' form here would be |
OK, I have basic support checked in: at the moment, only one input and one output format. I have a feeling this will need some refinement, but I will look at other issues and hope I get some feedback here! |
Given this is an area I'm less confident about, I'm going to go with what I have now for v3.3 and push any refinements to v3,4. |
thank you a lot! I will check. |
Replacement is "input-symmetrical-uncertainty-signs". This will be needed to address #675.
I've checked the new features and they are amazing. Thanks a lot! Having a long format ( The only issue I've found is that using uncertainty descriptors in a |
as a side note, it took me a while to figure out how to compile the code and produce the |
Very few users install themselves: almost everyone gets the package from their TeX system. For those that don't, there's a TDS-style zip on CTAN. And for those who want to extract, the classical instructions for DocStrip ('run |
Thanks for adding this really nice new feature! Asymmetric uncertainties are formatted perfectly using the compact input form with an
generates the error message:
Do I have something wrong in the syntax, or is parsing of the compact form for asymmetric uncertainties not yet enabled? Thanks! |
@kh296 Please log a separate issue |
OK, I'm going to close here as done - if there are more specific issues or requirements, please open a new issue. |
Spun out from #24 as the core multipart idea is now stable and it is only the asymmetrical aspect that needs addressing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: