Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9A862A94@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:21 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9A862A94" 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: {1} text macro Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 22:44:30 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 575 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9A862A94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Domenik: > I just found that lfonts.new (1991/11/27) defines a macro "\text", > which is just "\mbox". I don't see the reason why \ppounds and > \pdollar need \text rather than \mbox, but more important, \text > should surely not be defined. It is not a LaTeX macro, and > if it is necessary, it should be hidden (\@text). \text is for some time in nfss with the intention of adding it to LaTeX. The reason is amstex.sty an option that defines one command namely \text = to produce the right size text in all situation when used inside or outside math, = e.g. $a_\text{Some subscript}$ It is really quite useful for all = circumstances. However, Dominik's point is that the name is bad. This is an argument to consider. The command is in havy use by people that have looked into ams-latex. it is common for people with background in amstex. I thought it a much better and natural choice then \mbox. On the other hand one could also give this functionality to \mbox with the problem that this may just have much worse effects on older documents. > I had \newcommand'ed \text in one of my documents which I had'nt > latexed for some time, and was surprised to find that LaTeX now > objected. It took a while for me to trace the culprit. A good reason to start using \newcommand isn't it:-? Otherwise one would get far weired errors later on. Okay, any comments? Frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9A862A94 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} text macro

>From Domenik:

> I just found that lfonts.new (1991/11/27) defines = a macro "\text",
> which is just "\mbox".  I don't = see the reason why \ppounds and
> \pdollar need \text rather than \mbox, but more = important, \text
> should surely not be defined.  It is not a = LaTeX macro, and
> if it is necessary, it should be hidden = (\@text).

\text is for some time in nfss with the intention of = adding it to LaTeX.
The reason is amstex.sty an option that defines one = command namely \text to
 produce
the right size text in all situation when used inside = or outside math, e.g.
$a_\text{Some subscript}$ It is really quite useful = for all circumstances.

However, Dominik's point is that the name is bad. This = is an argument
to consider.  The command is in havy use by = people that have looked
into ams-latex. it is common for people with = background in amstex.  I
thought it a much better and natural choice then = \mbox. On the other
hand one could also give this functionality to \mbox = with the problem
that this may just have much worse effects on older = documents.

>  I had \newcommand'ed \text in one of my = documents which I had'nt
> latexed for some time, and was surprised to find = that LaTeX now
> objected.  It took a while for me to trace = the culprit.

A good reason to start using \newcommand isn't it:-? = Otherwise one
would get far weired errors later on.

Okay, any comments?

Frank


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9A862A94--