From murdoch at stats.uwo.ca  Fri Nov 18 19:12:35 2005
From: murdoch at stats.uwo.ca (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:12:35 -0500
Subject: [Rd] problem with \eqn (PR#8322)
In-Reply-To: <437E11F7.6010604@cimr.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20051117215558.33EB422485@slim.kubism.ku.dk>	<437E0384.604@cimr.cam.ac.uk>	<17278.3526.762256.703178@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<437E11F7.6010604@cimr.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <437E1993.5020804@stats.uwo.ca>

On 11/18/2005 12:40 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Martin Maechler wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>"Hin-Tak" == Hin-Tak Leung <hin-tak.leung at cimr.cam.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>   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use too smart LaTex (and using outdated \bf instead of \mathbf), 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
>>Extensions".
> 
> 
> 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/Rdconv.pm, but I don't know Perl well enough to attempt to 
fix it).

Duncan Murdoch



[Rd] problem with \eqn (PR#8322)
Duncan Murdoch