Does this look ok? (code is not production-ready yet, but seems reasonable to me) Taco \def\startsubstack {\begingroup \null \vcenter\bgroup \pushmacro\domatrixNC \let\endmath\relax \def\NC{\domatrixNC}% \def\MC{\domatrixNC\ifmmode\else$\def\endmath{$}\fi}% \global\let\domatrixNC\dodomatrixNC \def\NR{\endmath% \global\let\domatrixNC\dodomatrixNC \vadjust{\kern -.33\bodyfontsize}\crcr}% \mathsurround\zeropoint \everycr\emptytoks \halign\bgroup \hfil$\scriptstyle ##$\hfil\crcr } \def\stopsubstack {\crcr \egroup \popmacro\domatrixNC \egroup \endgroup} \starttext \startformula \sum_{% \startsubstack i = 1 \NR i \neq n \NR i \neq m \stopsubstack }a_i \stopformula \stoptext Aditya Mahajan wrote:

<--- On Jan 28, Taco Hoekwater wrote --->

Aditya Mahajan wrote:

The definition from m-newmat is at least partly superceded by the new core math definitions Hans added last week, so a new implementation would be better.

Can you suggest something?

Like this maybe?

\def\substack#1% {\begingroup \let\\\cr \startmathmatrix #1\stopmathmatrix \endgroup}

Probably needs a bit of tweaking to make it look better (perhaps a [strut=no] parameter?).

<--- On Jan 28, Vit Zyka wrote --->

What about use math primitive \atop:

\def\substack#1% {\begingroup \let\\\atop #1 \endgroup}

Sorry for not getting back for almost a month. Both suggestions work only partially. Consider

\startmathformula \sum_{% \startmathmatrix i = 1 \NR i \neq n \NR i \neq m \stopmathmatrix }a_i \stopformula

As Taco mentioned, the spacing is bad.

\atop gives correct spacing but you need to put subscripts in groups of two.

\startformula \sum_{ {i = 1 \atop i \neq n}\atop i \neq m } a_i \stopformula

Moreover, the font size is incorrect in both cases. Compare with the size of the subscript in \sum_{i = 1}.

Any suggestions?

Aditya _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context