From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/338
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context
Subject: Re: ConTeXt: Math displ: $$ vs.\startformula
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 14:16:08 +0100
Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl
Message-ID: <36D7F018.347D212C@wxs.nl>
References: <36D30927.84DF032A@gmx.de>
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 1035391200 23264 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 16:40:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:40:00 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: NTG-ConTeXt <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
Original-To: Tobias Burnus <burnus@gmx.de>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:338
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:338

Tobias Burnus wrote:

> whats the exact difference between $$ and \start/stopformula -- or why

\placeformula ... \startformula ... \stopformula 
   :: correct spacing, referencing, formulanumber

\placeformula ... $$ ... $$
   :: the same, but $$ is useless in editor based syntax checking

$$ ... $$
   :: the pure tex way, fuzzy spacing

\startformula ... \stopformula
   :: well defined spacing, consistent with other spacing

So, I suggest to avoid the $$ alternatives. 

> does this work ...

See taco's answer. 

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
    tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | mail: pragma@wxs.nl

                     ConTeXt and PPCHTeX site: www.ntg.nl/context
-----------------------------------------------------------------