Article View: comp.text.tex
Article #2226Re: AMSLaTeX vs. LaTeX
From: David Carlisle
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:29
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:29
29 lines
1816 bytes
1816 bytes
>>>>> On 13 Aug 92 21:21:18 GMT, PPARKER@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU (Phillip E. Parker) said:
Phillip> The closest compatibility I think is AMSLaTeX with LaTeX 2.09 + NFSS.
Phillip> It would be possible for almost any user to transfer .tex files from
Phillip> one to the other, but very time-consuming and tedious, and just more so
Phillip> with LaTeX 2.09 without NFSS.
AMSLaTeX *is* LaTeX 2.09 + NFSS. Or rather amslatex is a suite of
style options which work with such a format.
Clearly if a document uses some commands which are defined in a
document style or style option, then it will not work without some
modification if you choose not to use that style option. However this
applies to any latex style that defines commands rather than just
altering the formatting. To say an `amslatex' file is not a `latex'
file is the same as saying that a file calling on, say, `fancyheadings'
is not latex.
David
--
David Carlisle
JANET: carlisle@uk.ac.man.cs
Computer Science Department
Manchester University
Oxford Road
Manchester
England
M13 9PL
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<CARLISLE.92Aug14102947@r8d.cs.man.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!mucs!m1!carlisleReferences:
<7759644@MVB.SAIC.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!mucs!m1!carlisle From: carlisle@cs.man.ac.uk (David Carlisle) Newsgroups: comp.text.tex Subject: Re: AMSLaTeX vs. LaTeX Message-ID: <CARLISLE.92Aug14102947@r8d.cs.man.ac.uk> Date: 14 Aug 92 09:29:47 GMT References: <7759644@MVB.SAIC.COM> Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester Lines: 29 In-reply-to: PPARKER@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU's message of 13 Aug 92 21:21:18 GMT