## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show HTML Part by Default Condense Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 $$3608.120.23.2.1$$) Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]> From: Don Hosek <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 22:47:31 -0500 Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A45CCD6-AC52-4AE3-A9A5-E792AF658478" Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]> Parts/Attachments: text/plain (9 kB) multipart/related (9 kB) , text/html (9 kB) , Screen Shot 2020-10-01 at 22.39.12.png (8 kB) , Screen Shot 2020-10-01 at 22.39.30.png (9 kB) While looking into this question https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/565031/slightly-bigger-integral-in-exponent I found that the formatting of \int differs slightly when using the amsmath package vs the base LaTeX with the former using a scriptstyle integral while the base uses a textstyle integral. Given the following equation: $e^{i \int \!dt\,\frac{1}{2}m\dot x^2}$ I get with amsmath loaded and without it loaded. In both cases, the definition of \intop is the same and there doesn’t appear to be any functional difference between the redefined \int in amsmath and the definition of \int in fontmath.ltx So the questions are: (1) what’s happening differently in amsmath to change the appearance of the integral and (b) which is the correct behavior? -dh