Joseph Wright
Joseph Wright
Likely solution here is to rethink how to generate T/F/TF/p versions in the first place
Auto-coercision would look something like ```latex \ExplSyntaxOn \cs_gset_protected:Npn \__cs_generate_variant:nnNnn #1#2#3#4#5 { \if_meaning:w \c_false_bool #3 \msg_error:nne { kernel } { missing-colon } { \token_to_str:c {#1} } \__cs_use_i_delimit_by_s_stop:nw \fi: \__cs_generate_variant_check:nn {#1} {#2}...
(Generation of `p` form outstanding of course.)
Do we want an alternative PR for the above? I'll definitely add some notes to the docs whatever else happens
Current thinking on the interface is `123.4(+5:-6)`, but there is an open question as to whether one can 'read in' the signs, e.g. `123.4(5:6)`?
OK, current thinking is - New option `input-asymmetrical-uncertainty-signs` taking two brace groups, one positive, one negative; most likely users will stick with a default `nput-asymmetrical-uncertainty-signs = {+}{-}` - New option...
@maxfl The 'long' form here would be `1.23 + 0.04 - 0.06` or similar, comparable to `1.23 \pm 0.4`
OK, I have basic support checked in: at the moment, only one input and one output format. I have a feeling this will need some refinement, but I will look...
Given this is an area I'm less confident about, I'm going to go with what I have now for v3.3 and push any refinements to v3,4.
> as a side note, it took me a while to figure out how to compile the code and produce the `sty` file. Maybe a few lines may be added...