On 05-Feb-07 Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > >> you've replaced `cdot' with \(md in eqn -- why not replacing >> `...' with three \(md characters too? > > Don't! I want to have the "normal" ellipsis on the baseline. > (Like in 1, 2, ...; for special cases it's preferable to have > a separate "cdots" operator with three \(md characters.)
I heartily agree with Tadziu! I'm not sure what's being done to eqn at the moment (and today's earlier postings roused my concern), but if it's going to screw up normal equation formatting in (say) PostScript output for articles, reports, and other documents which expect proper typesetting, then I'm going to strongly oppose it! I've been sitting as a passive spectator during all this exchange about how to handle the man-page aspect of groff, and its interface with doclifter and the like, since I don't have any great concerns about the precise formatting of man-pages. That's not my main interest where groff is concerned, and so long as man-pages are readable and clear then all is fine with me as far as thatis concerned. But if the man-page tail starts to wag the groff dog, then it's time to close the door on it. How can we find out what precisely, and so far, has been done to groff and its components (tbl, eqn, pic, .. ) in the name of the man-page upgrade, and what the effects of this are likely to be on non-man-page usage? And what is likely to be next in the pipeline? Best wishes to all, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 05-Feb-07 Time: 17:54:23 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------