Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9CBD20BC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:25 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9CBD20BC" 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 non-internal meaning of ... Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 23:09:33 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 593 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9CBD20BC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To answer Dominik's last questions, > From what > you chaps have been saying, I gather that \text is a command > pertaining to AMSTeX. So that's where is should be defined, surely. > (Or in amstext.sty for LaTeX users.) The real definition of \text is ``currently defined in the style option amstext'' that is with the ams-latex stuff. BUT we thought this a good macro and think of including it in ltx3. For this reason it is already in NFSS. > I have been using LaTeX for years, and have extensive docs that > use a macro \text that I \newcommanded all for myself. It is > bothersome to find that "plain" LaTeX 2.09 + NFSS suddenly usurps > this totally bland macro name for some arcane internal purpose. It isn't for internal purpose, that's the problem. Only this this wrong default definition it is somewhat nonsense. > Incidentally, I still don't see why lfonts.new needs \text. It > is defined as \mbox. Why not just use \mbox, which is well documented > already? Have I missed something? A bit, because you still don't know what \text does (I mean the one >from amstext.sty). To explain it meaning there: \text means this is which can not be broken and will come out exactly in the right size whereever you use it, that it $a_{\text{abc}}$ will make a subscript with abc in text font but script size. Preparing some commands to use \text means what they behave correctly in such situations as soon as \text has the correct meaning. So the only question I see is whether the name is justified or not. I agree that it is short and somewhat generic. So one may think of a different name. Frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9CBD20BC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} text non-internal meaning of ...

 To answer Dominik's last questions,

> From what
> you chaps have been saying, I gather that \text = is a command
> pertaining to AMSTeX.  So that's where is = should be defined, surely.
> (Or in amstext.sty for LaTeX users.)

The real definition of \text is ``currently defined in = the style
option amstext'' that is with the ams-latex = stuff.

BUT we thought this  a good macro and think of = including it in ltx3. For
this reason it is already in NFSS.


> I have been using LaTeX for years, and have = extensive docs that
> use a macro \text that I \newcommanded all for = myself.  It is
> bothersome to find that "plain" LaTeX = 2.09 + NFSS suddenly usurps
> this totally bland macro name for some arcane = internal purpose.

It isn't for internal purpose, that's the problem. = Only this this
wrong default definition it is somewhat = nonsense.


> Incidentally, I still don't see why lfonts.new = needs \text.  It
> is defined as \mbox.  Why not just use = \mbox, which is well documented
> already?  Have I missed something?

A bit, because you still don't know what \text does (I = mean the one
>from amstext.sty).  To explain it meaning = there: \text means this is
<text> which can not be broken and will come = out exactly in the right
size whereever you use it, that it $a_{\text{abc}}$ = will make a
subscript with abc in text font but script = size.

Preparing some commands to use \text means what they = behave correctly
in such situations as soon as \text has the correct = meaning.

So the only question I see is whether the name is = justified or not. I
agree that it is short and somewhat generic. So one = may think of a
different name.

Frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9CBD20BC--