Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!ogicse!unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!cie!scavo
From: scavo@cie.uoregon.edu (Tom Scavo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: Equations - better way than Word?
Summary: always use an "inline" integral
Message-ID: <1990Dec19.020803.3051@ariel.unm.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 90 02:08:03 GMT
References: <9012161929.AA14458@cie.uoregon.edu> <3623@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Sender: news@ariel.unm.edu (News supported software)
Reply-To: scavo@cie.uoregon.edu (Tom Scavo)
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Lines: 30

In article <3623@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) writes:
>
>For integrals, try 
>
>   .\i(a,b,.\a( , )) <integrand expression>
>
>i.e. this gives WORD a null array as the integrand and makes the integral
>sign look "right".  The same technique works well for summation.

This doesn't clear up the problem I had in mind.  First of all,
the integral should almost always be of Word's "inline" type---
you'll rarely see the limits directly above and below the integral
symbol in mathematical writing---and this is precisely the problem
since

	.\I.\in(<llimit>,<ulimit>,<integrand>)

looks absolutely awful.  By trial and error, I've found that

	.\I.\in(.\S.\do4(<llimit>),.\S.\ai-4(<ulimit),<integrand>)

gives much better results.  You'll probably want to put this in
a glossary, however.

Secondly, it's not a good idea to separate the integrand from
the integral formula command since you lose the benefit of an
auto-sizing integral symbol.

Tom Scavo
scavo@cie.uoregon.edu