Message-Id: <199401311333.AA11304@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Mon, 31 Jan 1994 13:26:22 LCL
From: Mike Piff <M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: form and content
Status: R

From: Alex Stark <jas1@eng.cam.ac.uk>
%>There is a problem with redefining the basic commands that indicate the
%>structure and delineate mathematics. I think that it is important.
%>
%>1) We had an amusing incident recently when someone spell-checked a
%>document. They had redefined \begin{eqnarray} as \beq, purely out of
%>laziness. The spell checker would normally skip over the math but in this
%>case could not identify it.
%>
%>2) Editors are often clever enough to identify structure. I use emacs in
%>auc-tex mode. This is a folding editor, showing only section headings until
%>you open them up. It's really useful even on modestly-sized documents. It
%>would be possible, though irritating to redefine the heading patterns in
%>auc-tex for each set of LaTeX definitions. However, emacs is exceptionally
%>flexible.
%>

What would happen to the following?
Mike

\documentstyle[12pt]{article}

\begin{document}
\begin{section}{Sec}
\begin{enumerate}
   \begin{item}
      ggg
   \end{item}
\end{enumerate}
\end{section}
\end{document}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Dr M J Piff, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of %%
%% Sheffield, UK.                    e-mail: M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%