Which of it is the correct way in English typography, with LaTeX?
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
$f(x,y)= \ldots$
$f(x,\ y) = \ldots$
$f(x,\,y) = \ldots$
The coordinates $(x,y,z,t)$ \ldots
The coordinates $(x,\ y,\ z,\ t)$ \ldots
The coordinates $(x,\,y,\,z,\,t)$ \ldots
The coordinates $(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)$ \ldots $\leftarrow$ seems bad.
The coordinates $(x^0,\ x^1,\ x^2,\ x^3)$ \ldots
The coordinates $(x^0,\,x^1,\,x^2,\,x^3)$ \ldots
\end{document}
I write "seems bad" in the antepenultimate line because I feel same space before and after the commas.
Is there a package that automatize it? E.g a package which provide a command like \mycoord
which we can use as \mycoord{x,y,z,t}
and which add the correct spaces between comma in the output?
I'm aware of this question: Typesetting coordinates but answers are not clear about the spacing between the coordinate, and moreover, I don't want an answer with LaTeX 3, unless it's in a not so recent package (for compatibilities with a bit old system I don't control).
Edit: adding the comparison with a negative space before comma, in the case with variables with exponents.
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
1) The coordinates $(x,y,z,t)$ \ldots
2) The coordinates $(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)$ \ldots
3) The coordinates $(x^0\!,x^1\!,x^2\!,x^3)$ \ldots
\end{document}
Does the third seems better than the second?
Second edit:
How I see the spacing (probably wrongly..., but the third seems a little better than the second, but perhaps the negative space is a little too big) :
\,
bits and “backslash-space”. Now you're done.$(x,y,z,t)$
, there is more space after the comma than before. Must I keep juste the comma in this case, or add a negative space\!
before the comma in this specific case?