[texhax] help with identifying some macros

[Lars Madsen]

P. R. Stanley wrote:
> 
>> ok, as Philip Taylor & Donald Arseneau observe, \[...\] is the LaTeX 
>> way of writing $$...$$. \also may be a Spivey-defined macro. I think 
>> rather than understanding the remaining plainTeX constructs, Paul 
>> Stanley wants to know what you see if you are able to:
>>
>>>         Paul: Correct. for those who don't know already, I am 
>>> registered blind which means that I can't simply run the code through 
>>> the Miktex compiler to find out what the macros do.
> 
> LaTeX is the most accessible system for typsetting maths but the end 
> result is usually the exact opposite. So any help from the list members 
> is always very welcome
> 
> Regards
> Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
> Mailing list archives: http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/
> More links: http://tug.org/begin.html
> 
> Automated subscription management: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/texhax
> Human mailing list managers: postmaster at tug.org

I gave a talk recently for an association of blind people and people 
working with the blind.

One of the things we looked at is representing math in a way such that 
the blind can read it.

One of the ideas is to use the co-called octo-braille to represent 
ANSII, and then present well prepared LaTeX code for the blind to read.

Using standard LaTeX macro names are not that good as they often hide 
the true meaning of the equation.

For example in topology \cong often means isomorphy, so

X \isomorph Y gives much better meaning than X \cong Y

/daleif