Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Russ Woodroofe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Below, I have a patch to amsmaths.inc which uses the machinery
of the new version, but which is closer in format to the old. (In
particular, its flush with the margins, and italics rather than bold).
Thanks for the patch. I am not sure however what the rationale for the
change was. Paul, can you tell us more (assuming you did the change?)
Dare I point out that, as a professor, I have a three-day ceiling on memory?
I did shift the Case environment from a clone of Remark to an
enumeration, but I don't recall the rationale. I do recalling being a
bit concerned about the presentation (I prefer upright to italic for
case labeling), and I think there was an issue with the numbering (but I
don't recall it any longer). It's possible that there was a bug in an
earlier iteration that was tying case numbers to section numbers, but I
won't swear to it.
Somewhere during the hacking process, I had a brief e-mail exchange with
David Johnson, who I believe is the progenitor of the AMS layouts. I
think I might have asked his opinion on how to treat Case, but I can't
swear to that either.
If the patches change only the presentation and not the numbering, then
I can't see any harm. I think it's a matter of taste. I just grabbed
two math books, from different publishers, to see how they do it.
Naturally, I couldn't find cases in either one. I did find algorithms
in both, however, and they set "Step #" in italics, flush left, so I
suppose that's a reasonable way to do cases.
Sorry I can't be more specific. Again, I think the key change was
probably numbering.
/Paul
