Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9625FF3C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:14 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9625FF3C" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: nfss release 2 [again] Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 13:36:47 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Rainer Schoepf" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 536 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9625FF3C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey folks, can we please come back to the original problem? 1. What do you think of Frank's syntax & implementation, especially in the light of spqr's comments? 2. What do you think about the math issue? Rainer ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9625FF3C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable nfss release 2 [again]

Hey folks,

can we please come back to the original = problem?

1. What do you think of Frank's syntax & = implementation, especially in
the light of spqr's comments?

2. What do you think about the math issue?

Rainer


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9625FF3C--