Aditya Mahajan wrote:

> No, I mean the complicated math is much harder in context. Consider
>
> \begin{align}
>  a &= b \\
>  c &= d \notag \\
>    &= f \notag \\
>    &= g
> \end{align}
>
> which will typeset as
>
>  a = b        (1)
>  c = d
>    = f
>    = g        (2)
>
> \begin{subequations}
> \begin{align}
>  a &= b \\
>  c &= d
> \end{align}
> \end{subequations}
>
> Compare this from how to do this in context (see the wiki). You have 
> to *manually* set the number of the subequation. Actually, for 
> equation numbering and refering, the context way is rather limited. 
> Consider something like an align environment
>
> a &= b\\
> c &= d\\
> e &= f
>
> Suppose, I want to refer to the second equation.  In latex, I can 
> simply add \label{eq:2} and the end of c&= d and then \ref{eq:2}. For 
> context, the reference label goes at the top, with \placeformula[eqs]. 
> But I am not sure, how to give individual labels to each equations.

this 'loose label' is one of the ugliest concept i can think of -)

i'm willing to implement anything reasonable but since i  hardly use 
such math i only act on 'i want to achieve this' kind of specs (i have 
no time to read tons of tex documents)

much if this 'complicated' math is not that complicated to support,see 
attached file

btw, defaulting to numbers and then using \notag is messy; i prefer 
readable code, even if it takes more  bytes;  inventing a formula takes 
more time than keying it in.  Also, more structure,  means more hooks 
for configurability

Hans