I'm currently considering writing up some macros in order to provide a somewhat more reasonable alternative to what the physics package does. This is heavily inspired by Alternatives to the physics package.

The problem is: Which kind of macros should be implemented? I don't want to add questionable syntax like the package does, but more reasonable things with proper LaTeX typical optional arguments or even some more unconventional but still (imho) reasonable things, e.g. _ starting an optional argument for something that should be subscript and right delimited by either a ^ (starting a superscript) or the next mandatory argument.

Everyone is encouraged to wish for macros I should implement. If somebody has a finished solution for something that should be in the package -- and the person is willing to share it -- one can post those solutions as answers as well.

So what can a single answer to this question contain? A wish for a macro (optionally along with syntax proposals) or a macro-implementation (which might be subject to further discussions). Please only one per answer. You might upvote implementations or macro-wishes you deem a good idea to be in such a package.

Edit: So far the packages braket and diffcoeff were brought to my attention, which seem to provide macros for subsets of the physics package's functionality.

migrated from tex.meta.stackexchange.com Jan 23 at 21:06

This question came from our discussion, support, and feature requests site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems.

  • Maybe, it's easier to fork physics and fix the issues in the package itself? – homocomputeris Jan 24 at 20:02
  • 3
    @homocomputeris since one of the complains about the physics package is the questionable syntax, I'd prefer a complete rewrite. Removing the spurious spaces could be done this way, but I'm not really interested in that (contacting the maintainer to report spurious spaces should be the preferred approach for this). – Skillmon Jan 24 at 20:09
  • I decided to make my own set of improved macroes for bra, ket etc. which I use frequently, and some of the math macros (improved ofc.) that `physics´ define. At this point, I am close to finish a package with the math macroes. But the physics ones... the code needs some updates and the documentation is non-existing. But I hope to make a package with it aswell. If you are interested, feel free send me a message. – Simon May 15 at 15:35
  • @Simon I'm not really interested, personally. This question was to see what others wish for and I had some spare time. But you still might publish it and post the link here. – Skillmon May 15 at 16:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.