[OS X TeX] New Version of CommandCompletion.txt for TeXShop

Herb Schulz herbs at wideopenwest.com
Thu Sep 30 11:52:37 CEST 2004

On 9/29/04 10:14 PM, "Will Robertson" <will at guerilla.net.au> wrote:

> On 30 Sep 2004, at 12:25 PM, Herb Schulz wrote:
>> Is there some reason you believe that $...$ is more robust?
> Well, I've traced down why I thought so: David Kastrup wrote on
> comp.text.tex the following:
>> You have to be aware that $ is robust, while \(...\) is not.  That is,
>> if you say something like
>>    \section{\(E=mc^2\)}
>> it will barf, whereas the version with $...$ works fine.
> While I haven't checked it, I'd believe him.
> Will
> PS I like using \( and \) for \left( and \right) respectively.


That's very interesting. I just tried it and had no problem with either
version. Both versions weren't in bold until I added \boldmath. That worked
fine with CM, CMSuper, Latin Modern and Lucida Bright (expert) but Fourier
(even with expert Utopia) doesn't support bold math yet.

Good Luck,

Herb Schulz
(herbs at wideopenwest.com)

--------------------- Info ---------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
           & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Post: <mailto:MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu>

More information about the macostex-archives mailing list