Re: [Rd] problem with \eqn (PR#8322)

From: Duncan Murdoch <>
Date: Fri 18 Nov 2005 - 18:12:35 GMT

On 11/18/2005 12:40 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Martin Maechler wrote:

>>>>>>>"Hin-Tak" == Hin-Tak Leung <>
>>>>>>>   on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:38:28 +0000 writes:
>>    Hin-Tak> Your own fault. See below. It is basic LaTeX and any LaTeX person
>>    Hin-Tak> can tell you the answer...(most probably haven't bothered...)
>>No.  Whereas I partly agree that it's Ross ``fault'' trying to
>>use too smart LaTex (and using outdated \bf instead of \mathbf), 
>>The bug is really there, since we are talking about the Rd "language",
>>not LaTeX, an in Rd,  \eqn and \deqn are defined to have either
>>one or two arguments -- where Ross used the 2-argument version
>>correctly (in principle at least) --> See the manual "Writing R

> Forgive me for not reading R-ext carefully, but Ross's Rd code is
> still "obviously" wrong in the lights of the two-argument \eqn:
> (really doesn't differ from the 1-arg interpretaion of \eqn)
> \eqn{{\bf\beta}_j}{\bf\beta}_jnormal-bracket5bracket-normal{b(j)}
> In other words,
> \eqn{...}{...}_...
> and the "_" is still outside of any maths environment, which is most
> probably not Ross's intention.

But that is Latex code produced by R, not Rd code produced by Ross. The bug is in the Latex production (which I think is done by share/perl/R/, but I don't know Perl well enough to attempt to fix it).

Duncan Murdoch mailing list Received on Sat Nov 19 05:29:15 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 20 Feb 2006 - 03:21:33 GMT