On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:53:29AM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > I think that the improvement you gain by using align (e.g. no ugly spaces)
> > justifies to make it the default. In my opinion, people should use align
> > instead of eqnarray. If we change C-return to create an eqnarray,
> > most users will prefer using eqnarray just because it has shorter key binding.
>
> the alignmode makes only sense, if you have the same mathoperator
> in all lines for the vertical alignment. otherwise it's a bad
> layout. for example
>
> \begin{align}
> y_{12} & = a^2+x+d \\
> y & \stackrel{\textrm{\scriptsize def}}{=} x^3+x^2
> \end{align}
>
> eqnarray centers the middle cell, so it looks okay!
You can just use \stackrel{\makebox[0pt]{\textrm{\scriptsize def}}}{=}
and it will look OK with align. In fact, it will look better than an
eqnarray...
> > (2) Most users just don't know about amsmath and what it does.
> > For example, in normal latex, if you have a numbered equation that is too
> > wide, the equation will overwrite the equation number.
> > However, if you include amsmath, the equation number will be moved down.
> > So it could be argued that amsmath should always be included by LyX when you
> > have a numbered equation.
>
> this could not be the only argument for align ...
> from my point of view, the user has a bad layout for the equation
> when it's too long!
This was not given as an argument for using align. It was an example that
just loading amsmath gives you benefits over standard latex.
The advantages of align are:
1. No extra spaces (eqnarray puts extra space before and after the middle
column)
2. Simpler to use
3. Works with the amsmath \tag command
4. Works with the amsthm \qedhere command
