[Rd] problem with \eqn (PR#8322)

[maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch]

>>>>> "Hin-Tak" == Hin-Tak Leung <hin-tak.leung at cimr.cam.ac.uk>
>>>>>     on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:38:28 +0000 writes:

    Hin-Tak> Your own fault. See below. It is basic LaTeX and any LaTeX person
    Hin-Tak> can tell you the answer...(most probably haven't bothered...)

No.  Whereas I partly agree that it's Ross ``fault'' trying to
use too smart LaTex (and using outdated \bf instead of \mathbf), 
;-)

The bug is really there, since we are talking about the Rd "language",
not LaTeX, an in Rd,  \eqn and \deqn are defined to have either
one or two arguments -- where Ross used the 2-argument version
correctly (in principle at least) --> See the manual "Writing R
Extensions".


    >> Full_Name: Ross Boylan
    >> Version: 2.2.0
    >> OS: Linux
    >> Submission from: (NULL) (65.175.48.58)
    >> 
    >> 
    >> \eqn{{\bf\beta}_j}{b(j)} in my .Rd file produces this error

    >> --------------------------------------------
    >> ! Missing $ inserted.
    >> <inserted text> 
    >> $
    >> l.7 \eqn{{\bf\beta}_j}{\bf\beta}_jnormal-bracket5bracket-normal{b(j)}

    Hin-Tak> \eqn{{\bf\beta}_j} is already syntactically complete, so latex
    Hin-Tak> complains the next "_" is not in maths mode, and automatically
    Hin-Tak> switch into maths mode for you (the $ inserted message) You have
    Hin-Tak> to match all the braces - you need 3 right-braces after \eqn,
    Hin-Tak> like this, at least:

    Hin-Tak> \eqn{  {  {\bf\beta
    Hin-Tak> }_j
    Hin-Tak> }
    Hin-Tak> {\bf\beta
    Hin-Tak> }_ ....
    Hin-Tak> {b(j)
    Hin-Tak> }
    Hin-Tak> }