> Timothy Murphy wrote -- > > I am just looking at a very well printed old book (Hardy & Wright, 1954), > > That would be the Monotype 5-line as used by CUP I think? > > This is what Knuth would have emulated had he been working 5000 miles > further east. > > > For one thing, they do things which would be difficult (for me) in LaTeX, > > eg Theorem 6: with a displayed formula on the same line. > > A known deficiency (but this is not the right list:-). > > I have a much more recent, but pre-computers, CUP-printed book that is > an amazing example of very tight math typography despite a large > amount of in-line math (which usually messes up any attempt at godd > typography): totally, mind-blowingly different from what we are used to > now! care to offer a title, so i can go and browse in the cup shop? (or is it out of print?) > > It should be said that Hardy & Wright is an exception for its period. does hardy & wright actually date from the 50s? it seemed very `old fashioned' (in terms of its content) to me as a 60s undergraduate. lovely book, though... > > Most of the research maths books of that vintage > > were appallingly badly "printed" (usually typed). > > As early as that??: it is something I associate with the 60s: bring back > the golf-ball! i thought that, too. but there _was_ good typesetting of maths _textbooks_ in the 60s: it was just the monographs that looked crappy. (unless they came from cup, that is: damned expensive they were...) > > TeX has been responsible for > > an immense increase in the average printing quality of maths books. > > Absolutely. But it would be really serious fun (for everyone but > sebastian:-) to try and emulate using TeX what CUP could do back then. i wonder what proportion of the active members of this list are either active (such as chris and tim) or ex- (such as me) mathematicians. apart from sebastian, i can't think of many... robin