From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/922 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Taco Hoekwater Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Sample of the day (AmSTeX alignments) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 15:23:36 +0000 (GMT) Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <14302.26744.606971.175202@PC709.wkap.nl> References: <3.0.5.32.19990912115223.00b5ae00@mail.northcoast.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035391765 28342 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 16:49:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:49:25 +0000 (UTC) Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:922 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:922 >>>>> "David" == David Arnold writes: David> I am now going to do some of the same alignments in David> \AmSTeX. Note the subtle differences in equation labeling. Which do you prefer? I don't want to use the name \tag in context, since context has \equationnumber for this purpose, and it follows that I prefer the latex-style \tag syntax. \TagsOn.. functionality will be available anyway. AmsTeX has an advantage from my point of view, because amsmath depends quite heavily on LaTeX's "array", which of course is not present in Context. Greetings, Taco -- Taco Hoekwater taco.hoekwater@wkap.nl Kluwer Academic Publishers -- Pre Press -- Achterom 119, 3311 KB Dordrecht, The Netherlands tel. 31-78-6392550 ---------------------------------------------------------------------