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:         Wed, 28 Feb 90 20:14:00 MET
Reply-To: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
Sender: LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1@unido.bitnet>
From: "Nico (Poppelier@Hutruu51.Bitnet)" <POPPELIER%HUTRUU51@unido.bitnet>
Subject:      Re: \boldmath discussion
To: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.uucp>
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 42

`A new font selection scheme...' (II)


Barbara Beeton is of course right in stating that the best thing to do
with different vector representations is to hide them in the style. In
one style \vec produces a vector accent, in another roman bold-face, and
in a third one italic bold-face (cases 2 and 3 both occur in Elsevier
publications).

Why not add \bi (bold italic) as a family instead of \ttfam and get rid
of the boldmath construction? I have never seen anyone use \boldmath for
an entire formula, only in \mbox{\boldmath ...} construction  -- see
message of Don Hosek.

Don Hosek's \mbox{\boldmath ...} construction doesn't work if a vector
is the subscript of a summation ..., unless you put \scriptstyle in by
hand. I use this thing in the current styles for the Elsevier journals,
but I think we should come up with something better for LaTeX 2.10.

What authors should write is \sum_{\vec{k}}. The document style should
convert this into \sum_{\bf k} or \sum_{\bi k}. That's why I suggest
to replace \ttfam by \bifam and to remove the \boldmath construction.

As for other math constructions: I'm anxious to try out amstex.sty. Can
we test it, and if so when?


Nico