[texhax] Puzzling (La)TeX output

[Justin C. Walker]

On May 4, 2006, at 15:44 , Reinhard Kotucha wrote:

>>>>>> "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
> read amsldoc.{dvi,ps,pdf}.  Forget everything you read in a book about
> LaTeX unless it describes amsmath.  If you are told to use \eqnarray
> you are reading the wrong book.\

I knew this too :-}

Perhaps I should have provided more context, but Barbara did have the  
answer.

Cheers,

Justin

--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large, Director
Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income
--------
The path of least resistance:
it's not just for electricity any more.
--------