>>>>> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > | This sounds like a disadvantage... So why do we use \(...\) at
>> all? > > AFAIK \( \) is advised in LaTeX instead of $ $
Andre> What's the rationale behind this?
Let's say that plain TeX only knows about $...$ and $$...$$. \(...\)
and \[...\] are only defined in LaTeX. So, in an effort to use good
LaTeX, we decided to use the second form.
As far as I know, the only difference between $...$ and \(...\) is
that it checks whether we are already in math mode
% \begin{macro}{\(}
% \begin{macro}{\)}
% Produces |$...$| with checks that |\(| isn't used in math mode, and
% that |\)| is only used in math mode begun with |\(|.
% \begin{macrocode}
\def\({\relax\ifmmode\@badmath\else$\fi}
\def\){\relax\ifmmode\ifinner$\else\@badmath\fi\else \@badmath\fi}
This means that less confusion will happen if a $ or \) is forgotten.
However, this is also what makes the command fragile.
Concerning \[...\], the situation is the same, except that it has
special spacing code:
\def\[{%
\relax\ifmmode
\@badmath
\else
\ifvmode
\nointerlineskip
\makebox[.6\linewidth]%
\fi
$$%%$$ BRACE MATCH HACK
\fi
}
Also, using macros has the advantage that they can be redefined by a
package. For example, amsmath.sty redefines \[...\], whereas it could
not do anything about \[...\].
Therefore, what I suggest is that we use $...$ and \[...\], in a sort
of yes-we-can-can-try-to-please-everyone move.
JMarc
