mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Phil Mendelsohn <address@hidden>]

On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 04:33:09PM +0200, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:

> Please give us details about what you are saying.
> I think that TeXmacs is usually better in interline spacing than
> TeX.

Sorry, I disagree.  It is usually (at least in math mode) and to my
eye, more cramped and harder to read.

> For instance, try typing a line like
> 
> ************************************************ a   **************
>                                                   i
>             x                                      j
>            e
> ********* e   *****************************************************
> 
> This will look correctly in TeXmacs, not in TeX.

Try the following:

\begin{eqnarray*}
  z(x,t) &=& \frac{du}{dt}\\
  z''(x,t) &=& \frac{\partial f}{\partial u'} z' + \frac{\partial
  f}{\partial u} z
\end{eqnarray*}

If you compare the .dvi output to the TeXmacs rendering, you see that
there is more space between the fractions in LaTeX.  I am talking
about things that are much more mundane than double exponents or
subscripts.

Another one that particularly gets difficult is in the math mode
(equations environment) when you have sigma notation that is aligned
vertically.  {\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}, for example}.  There should be
extra white space between the two.  There is in the LaTeX output.

Generally, I guess I might characterize it as Large Symbols, and
fractions that cause the most trouble.

cheers,
Phil Mendelsohn

-- 
"To misattribute a quote is unforgivable." -- Anonymous