# [texhax] Puzzling (La)TeX output

Reinhard Kotucha reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Fri May 5 00:44:41 CEST 2006

>>>>> "Micha" == Micha Hofri <hofri at cs.wpi.edu> writes:

> All you need to do is to put it in \mbox.  I assume there are more
> elagant ways (I could not compile it even, the way you write it
> --- TeX bit it and was poisoned: capacity exceeded):

>  \newcommand{\dx}{\mbox{{\rm dx}}}

I do not see any good reason to use \mbox in formulas.  Try this
within a fraction.  And \rm is an obsolete LaTeX-2.09 command.

I think that there is nothing to add to what Barbara Beeton said.

Though I said that there is nothing to add, let me say this:

If you have to typeset at least one formula, \usepackage{amsmath} and
LaTeX unless it describes amsmath.  If you are told to use \eqnarray
you are reading the wrong book.

Regards,
Reinhard

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhard Kotucha			              Phone: +49-511-4592165
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover	                      mailto:reinhard.kotucha at web.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------