X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil]
	[nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil])
Date:         Tue, 27 Feb 90 18:09:00 GMT
Reply-To: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.uucp>
Sender: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.uucp>
From: "Chris Rowley - Open University UK (R01/Maths)"
              <CA_ROWLEY@VAX.ACS.OPEN.AC.UK>
Subject:      RE: Suggestions from Utrecht (IV)
To: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.uucp>
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 34

> What LaTeX lacks, in my opinion is a tool for the designer to typeset,
> ...
The situation is far simpler than that:
What Latex lacks (sic) is anything at all useful for typesetting maths
(there is \frac{}{}, \stackrel{}{} and \sqrt[]{}, which are all
excellent, but then, every rule has its  exceptions or 3!)

[I mean, of course, that Latex adds nothing except these to the
typesetting of individual formulas.

In particular, every Local Guide I write says
"DANGER: use \boldmath only at your own risk".]

The question this raises is whether, with AMSTEX.STY "coming real
soon", need/ought we to do anything about this situation?


chris