Aditya Mahajan wrote:
No, I mean the complicated math is much harder in context. Consider
\begin{align} a &= b \\ c &= d \notag \\ &= f \notag \\ &= g \end{align}
which will typeset as
a = b (1) c = d = f = g (2)
\begin{subequations} \begin{align} a &= b \\ c &= d \end{align} \end{subequations}
Compare this from how to do this in context (see the wiki). You have to *manually* set the number of the subequation. Actually, for equation numbering and refering, the context way is rather limited. Consider something like an align environment
a &= b\\ c &= d\\ e &= f
Suppose, I want to refer to the second equation. In latex, I can simply add \label{eq:2} and the end of c&= d and then \ref{eq:2}. For context, the reference label goes at the top, with \placeformula[eqs]. But I am not sure, how to give individual labels to each equations.
this 'loose label' is one of the ugliest concept i can think of -) i'm willing to implement anything reasonable but since i hardly use such math i only act on 'i want to achieve this' kind of specs (i have no time to read tons of tex documents) much if this 'complicated' math is not that complicated to support,see attached file btw, defaulting to numbers and then using \notag is messy; i prefer readable code, even if it takes more bytes; inventing a formula takes more time than keying it in. Also, more structure, means more hooks for configurability Hans