From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>
Subject: Re: how to insert fraction & integration
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:36:26 -0400
Message-ID: <9472.1348842986@alphaville>
References: <CAJBgvSOPz+O9m5Ff3JSH28eAfn_4tjLEojYZqYK2C9Cw+8LeEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87d3175by0.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <3637.1348800284@alphaville>
	<87d316r6xu.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>
Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44066)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>) id 1THbgC-0001Pl-1o
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:36:40 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>) id 1THbg5-0001Wj-NT
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:36:35 -0400
Received: from g1t0029.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.36]:2957)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>) id 1THbg5-0001WV-I5
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:36:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: Message from Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
	of "Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:35:09 +0200." <87d316r6xu.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Supriya Sawant <sp.sawant14@gmail.com>

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
> 
> > $$...$$ is plain TeX, not LaTeX, and according to Lamport (p. 233),
> > "... does not work properly." See also
> >
> >    http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=dolldoll
> 
> $$...$$ worked for me for years in LaTeX (using tetex on GNU/Linux)
> so I'm curious: is this FAQ entry still accurate?  The web page says
> "2012-03-29" but maybe that's just an automated time-stamp, not telling 
> whether this entry in particular is still relevant.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the pointer, learning every day!
> 

I don't know for sure, but I presume it's still valid: I abandoned
$$...$$ many years ago after reading Lamport and have used \[...\]
ever since. The breakage seems subtle, so why chance it?

Nick