# Re: Cyrillic in math

• To: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk, MJD@MATH.AMS.ORG
• Subject: Re: Cyrillic in math
• From: sozueh@rpi.edu
• Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 11:31:08 EDT

> > one could write for example $\int_{\rm all\ space} ...$ or
> > $\rho=\rho_{\rm free}+\rho_{\rm bound}$ etc. clearly when such a
>
> No, what your example shows is the poor design of the plain TeX way of
> writing the bits of text free' and bound' directly in math mode.
> They should better be done in text mode, not math mode, by putting
> them into an \hbox (and a \mathchoice, as in the \text macro of
> AMSTeX). Consider what happens if you write {\rm quasi-free} in math
> mode, as opposed to \text{\rm quasi-free}. The surprise to the user of
> little problems like this seems to me about the same as the \bf\gamma
> surprise that you wrote about earlier.

i might think your argument has substance if you can show me *any*
way of getting a bold upright gamma.

if i get what i need when i type \bf G or \bf g or \bf \Gamma,
but don't get what would be expected when i type \bf \gamma,
i don't think this is my fault. this is like having a quarter
of screws in a device left-handed and the rest right handed
for no apparent reason---other than perhaps just lack of
(fill in your favorite reason here) on the part of its designer.

i don't think there is any value in trying to make up lame
excuses for something that's so obviously irrational.
if there is a way to fix it, why not do so?
sami