🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug12.171922.2321@wuecl.wustl.edu>, kevin@rodin.wustl.edu (Kevin Ruland) writes:
> The big question: Is AMSLaTeX (using oldlfont.sty or whatever) roughly
> backwardly compatible to LaTeX 2.09?  I realize that stylefiles may not
> be portable, but could the typical user *easily* port his papers from
> the old to the new?

You've mixed up the ideas of NFSS (New Font Selection Scheme) and the AMS
stuff. It is true that you have to use NFSS if you wish to use the
AMS-LaTeX stuff. The incompatibilities you describe are due to NFSS, not
AMS-LaTeX. The one that usually catches folks is the use of \rm. It is easy
to fix these.

If a file runs under the NFSS correctly, then you can add AMS stuff with
  \documentstyle[amstex]{article}
Your file will still LaTeX correctly (of course, you haven't really used 
the AMS-LaTeX stuff in this example). If you are currently using a hacked
scheme to get the symbols from AMSFonts, there may be a few changes needed.

If you use the amsart style, then a few small changes to the "topmatter"
stuff (such as \author) may be needed.

--darrel hankerson hank@ducvax.auburn.edu