Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In LaTeX2 a_1, a_{123} and a^1, a^{123} used to produce subscripts and superscripts respectively. In LaTeX3 superscripts still work the same way, but what happened to subscripts? I suspect the prominent role underscores play in LaTeX3 names has made a change necessary. I tried \_ without success.

I think that when you're writing the actual content, you should have l3 syntax turned off. –  Seamus Mar 21 '12 at 13:07
Not sure what that means, can you elaborate further please. –  Reinhard Neuwirth Mar 22 '12 at 5:38
It means that the expl3 syntax should only be used in internal code, e.g, in packages etc or between \ExplSyntaxOn ...\ExplSyntaxOff and that on document level the _ or : does not have this kind of meaning. –  Frank Mittelbach May 31 '12 at 16:57
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 14 down vote accepted

Within the document, no change should be necessary. If you need to access subscripts within the code section where _ is considered as a letter, you could use \sb which is defined in LaTeX as in plain TeX to have the same definition as the usual _ token. Or if you want a L3 name for it \c_math_subscript_token (which is actually a * rather than a _ but with the right catcode).

I am happy to report that \sb does the trick. Thank you David. Your reference to * and to catcodes is beyond my present capability to understand, but I am getting there. –  Reinhard Neuwirth Mar 21 '12 at 14:24
add comment

This site is currently not accepting new answers.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .