On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>>> "Amir" == Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Why would you like to number every single equation when you will not
> refer to them? Just for the pleasure to have an equation numbered
> (4.5.103)? I even wrote a packages which suppresses numbering of
> equations when the equation is not referred to :)
>From the Revtex docs (3.1, but I doubt they've changed):
"The most common (and preferred) type of displayed equation in The APS
Journals in a *single-line equation, with an equation number on the same
line*. Try to set as many equations as you can in this way." (emphasis
theirs).
They do tell you about \[, but don't seem to encourage it.
I can't tell you *why* it's done that way, but AFAICT all the chem/phys/bio
journal papers I've looked at number all equations. As well as the two
theses I've got on my desk.
> Try the new command-sequence. Something like
>
> \bind "M-m e" "command-sequence math-mode ; math-number ;"
Ah! Neat idea! I'll see how it goes.
Speaking of math-bind, the current math.bind has:
\bind "M-m ~S-period" "accent-dot"
But when I hit shift-period, I get a ">", and so I get
\bind "M-m ~S-greater" "math-delim rangle langle"
Why not bind to "M-m period"?
While we're at it, Customization has a *very* short description of the bind
files. (It says to look at the bind files to see how they work.) For
example, how do I know what ~S means in a bind file? Or is there another doc
where it's mentioned?
-Amir
