>>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My thought is, the only good reason to chose math insets would be >> to prove that it is an inherently better architecture. And I am not >> qualified to comment on this. Angus> Jean-Marc, with all due respect, you're talking in circles. You Angus> make a value judgment simply by saying that math insets are Angus> clean and the rest needs cleaning up. What I mean is that there are AFAIK different design choices in normal and math insets. And then there is the problem of the quality of the existing implementations. These are two different things, although both are very important in practice. Basically I see that Andre' says math insets are better, Juergen says the opposite. They are the ones who know about it. And then, why am I supposed to say sound things? JMarc
