From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:31:57 +0200
From: Carsten Kunze <carsten.kunze@arcor.de>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <532009206.1377710.1407936717779.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOEdRO0n5+e=4Li+Pcr7ZUyacEeZYFFAkN+MStW806a+v68Stw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOEdRO0n5+e=4Li+Pcr7ZUyacEeZYFFAkN+MStW806a+v68Stw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1179414908.1374571.1407927433550.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net>
	<CAOEdRO3astiUUUkwB0DkNn5aGOjKRXMfMH2VdmNOd18+5wGT0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<670664978.1376161.1407932171630.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Many bugs in eqn(1)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0f789696-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Still I don't get what you mean. In that message we say
> 1) quality of TeX typesetting is better,
> 2) the way the equation is written (the syntax) in eqn feels
> better to me.

Ok, I got that wrong.

> Just to be sure. I don't mean readability of documents to be typeset.
> I mean the source code of the whole system. I.e., in the case of LaTeX,
> the readability/understanding/hackability of the macros' definitions.

I got that wrong too...

And thank you for the advice regarding gv(1) and printed output.  I had
not expected a difference there.  With printed output I have no errors
with DWB (except the TAB).  (With P9P there is still the root sign shift.)

Carsten