The line
i(x,y,z,t) = \delta(x-\ell_x(z)) \delta(y-\ell_y(z)) \hat{\imath}(\xi(z),t)
produces (for my eyes, at least) too little space between the successive function calls. It is difficult to visually distinguish the three calls. I guess the underlying reason is that the expressions that serve as function arguments are relatively long. For comparison,
i(x,y,z,t) = \delta(x) \delta(y) \hat{\imath}(\xi(z),t)
already looks a lot better in my opinion.
I know that I could
- Manually adjust spacing using
\,
etc., including the option to define a macro that does this automatically. - Insert
\cdot
as a means of adding seperating space.
However, my question is: Is there a canonical way (e.g. a package) of dealing with this problem? I imagine I'm not the first one to encounter this problem... still, I wasn't able to find useful, general solutions to the problem.
A possible solution might be something along the lines of
i(x,y,t) = \delta \funcargs{x-\ell_x(z)} \delta \funcargs{y-\ell_y(z)} \hat{\imath} \funcargs{\xi(z)}{t}
Note that I find the use of \cdot
to be unsatisfying since it introduces inconsistency in the document (sometimes having the dot and sometimes not, with the meaning being the same).
\,
or\;
to add more space.\mathinner{...}
s?\mathinner
, no space would be inserted between it and\mathclose
, but\thinmuskip
would be inserted between it and\mathpunct
.