> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:49:28AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote: Yes, there have been bugs in that area, but I believed
Andre> they have been squashed.
>> Andre, I can confirm this bug in 1.2.2cvs. Do you have a fix in
Thorsten Fischer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since 1.2.1 I experienced a strange behavior of the limits of integral. If I
> put the limits above and below the Integral either with \limits or with the
> M-m l shortcut it works fine till I save and reopen the document.
> After reopening the limit placement cha
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:49:28AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> Yes, there have been bugs in that area, but I believed they
> Andre> have been squashed.
>
> Andre, I can confirm this bug in 1.2.2cvs. Do you have a fix in hand?
No...
but now. See attachment.
Andre'
--
Those who
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:27:06AM +0100, Thorsten Fischer
Andre> wrote:
>> since 1.2.1
Andre> Does this include 1.3.0cvs?
>> Is this a known bug?
Andre> Yes, there have been bugs in that area, but I believed they
Andre> have bee
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:27:06AM +0100, Thorsten Fischer wrote:
> since 1.2.1
Does this include 1.3.0cvs?
> Is this a known bug?
Yes, there have been bugs in that area, but I believed they have been
squashed.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not
Hi,
since 1.2.1 I experienced a strange behavior of the limits of integral. If I
put the limits above and below the Integral either with \limits or with the
M-m l shortcut it works fine till I save and reopen the document.
After reopening the limit placement changed back to the "normal" placemen
