Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hello,
%D \startbuffer
%D \placeformula \startformula \startalign
%D \NC a \NC \eq b \NR[+]
%D \NC c \NC \neq d \NR
%D \NC\NC \neq f \NR[for:hans]
%D \NC\NC \geq g \NR[for:whoelse][a]
%D \NC\NC \leq h \NR[for:whomore][b]
%D \NC\NC \neq i \NR
%D \stopalig
<--- On Jan 14, Adam Duck wrote --->
Just to give you some hints what's already there...
Aditya Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
< 63 lines deleted by Adam Duck >
1. Have align support with variable number of columns.
a &= b
&= c &+ d
&&+ e
should be typeset as
a = b
= c +
Just to give you some hints what's already there...
Aditya Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
< 63 lines deleted by Adam Duck >
> 1. Have align support with variable number of columns.
> a &= b
>&= c &+ d
>&&+ e
>
> should be typeset as
>
> a = b
>= c + d
>+ e
At least
Hello,
%D \startbuffer
%D \placeformula \startformula \startalign
%D \NC a \NC \eq b \NR[+]
%D \NC c \NC \neq d \NR
%D \NC\NC \neq f \NR[for:hans]
%D \NC\NC \geq g \NR[for:whoelse][a]
%D \NC\NC \leq h \NR[for:whomore][b]
%D \NC\NC \neq i \NR
%D \stopalign \stopformula
%D \stop
<--- On Jan 13, Aditya Mahajan wrote --->
<--- On Jan 13, Hans Hagen wrote --->
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
<--- On Jan 13, Hans Hagen wrote --->
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{su
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
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Hans Hagen wrote:
Aditya Mahajan wrote:
Most math in latex is *not* same as tex math. Though, most that can be done
with latex can also be done in tex, but latex does provide a nice interface
which sadly is missing in context. amsl and nath modules provide some of
this f
Aditya Mahajan wrote:
Most math in latex is *not* same as tex math. Though, most that can be
done with latex can also be done in tex, but latex does provide a nice
interface which sadly is missing in context. amsl and nath modules
provide some of this functionality but a lot still needs to be
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Hans Hagen wrote:
Kumar Appaiah wrote:
2. The tutorial tells us to refer to other sources (The TeX Book) for
more on Math typesetting. Is there any online resource which would
explain TeX (as opposed to LaTeX) math?
most math (also in latex) is tex math, macro package
Kumar Appaiah wrote:
I have been using ConTeXt for a short time now, after I switched from
LaTeX. I find it quite great, but I have two queries regarding it. I
am using teTeX in Debian (unstable).
1. Are the Lucida Bright fonts used in the documentation part of the
complete teTeX documentatio
I have been using ConTeXt for a short time now, after I switched from
LaTeX. I find it quite great, but I have two queries regarding it. I
am using teTeX in Debian (unstable).
1. Are the Lucida Bright fonts used in the documentation part of the
complete teTeX documentation or are they fonts whi
12 matches
Mail list logo
