Hans Aberg writes:
> My comment was not intended as polemics. As a matter of fact, several
> mathematicians I know refuse to use LaTeX, because it cannot provide the
> mathematical typesetting they think are needed. The situation improved with
and what are they using if i may ask? something else than TeX? or plain TeX?
> >if you read carefully you find MS1 (point 14 page 35) Alan's arrow
> >construction set as a possible suggestion for inclusion
> If one reads this line carefully, it says
> For fun if there is place to spare:
> 14. Alan's arrow construction set: ?
> Will this comment reassure the guy, who do not use LaTeX for the lack of
> proper mathematical typesetting, and just need to quickly knock out a
> mathematical manuscript with say a few classical commutative diagrams (whic
> surely is not for fun)?
> No, I do not think so. The impression from this line is rather the
> opposite. :-)
probably true. Justin's choice of words could have been better here.
but although the arrow set is important for a large area of
mathematics it would not actually be a problem if it would be taken
out of a core standard (to leave room for, say, less abstract symbols,
eg some additional sizes for large accents etc, and instead being
taken on as an optional application encoding. correct? anyway, right
now it is (with a strange wording :-) part of the core suggestion and
a discussion like mine above can/should wait until we see it in
> At 09:41 97-04-14, J%org Knappen, Mainz wrote:
> >This is specially to Hans Aberg:
> >Please look thru the archives of math-font-discuss *now*. It will prevent
> >you from repeating old arguments and may enable you to contribute something
> >really new -- I don't pretend to know everything, but hearing old
> >discussions anew is quite boring.
> So, even if the math-font-discuss archives already knows-it-all, as far
> as the discussions conducted here, how can we assure that the hitherto
> disappointing LaTeX track-record in this area will not continue?
> Hans Aberg