[texhax] Adjusted gap text/display-math. Was: less gap text/display math when almost empty

Alexandru Scorpan ascorpan at math.ufl.edu
Mon Oct 4 05:00:26 CEST 2004

Thanks for all your replies.

Let me clarify a bit:  I was actually referring to regular math 
display, not necessarily to align* etc.  True, something does happen.  
But I guess my taste is a bit more extreme even than 
\abovedisplayskip=0pt:  I would favor a value of -.5\baselineskip, 
bringing it up a bit.

Indeed, if you have <full-text-line1> / <short-text-line> / 
<lil'-math-display> / <full-text-line2>, then the display sits 
essentially between the two <full-text-line>'s, with a whole extra 
\baselineskip gap on top.  Thus, better to average with 
-.5\baselineskip, to my taste.

I think I am bound to do these things by hand, especially as a really 
nice output depends on a lot of factors, like percentage of fullness 
for all lines involved, as well as tricky cases such as when you have a 
math display like:  <stuff> = <Matrix>, where <stuff> appears under the 
end of <short-text-line>, but the <Matrix> sits under the previous 
<full-text-line1>:  it is nice then to lift it up, again.  Indeed, 
all-in-all I find myself using all sorts of fractions of \baselineskip 
to get what I like...

I guess all this is simply some sort of wish list, maybe somebody 
proficient in the finer points of TeX might enjoy doing something about 
it...  After all, people get excited (incl. me) about all sorts of 
microtypographical finesse, like character protruding/marging kerning 
and font expansion, while the math display remains, in my humble 
opinion, somewhat rudimentary.

BTW:  Is there a reasonably accessible mechanism through which I could 
hook up into the bowels of TeX's decision between \abovedisplayskip / 
\abovedisplayshortskip?  A good way to compare superpositions / line 
fullness, etc?

-- Alex

More information about the texhax mailing list