Mike Barr has pointed out that some La/TeX packages for commutative diagrams or general graphics use specially provided fonts. My own experience with *any* divergence from the fonts provided in bog-standard TeX distribution causes more trouble than it's worth: witness the design size (Sauter) fonts in particular. (Incidenatlly, these are now no longer used by default in our local LaTeX implementation, and so should not be needed when fetching dvi files from our archive at theory.doc.ic.ac.uk). *Not* using extra fonts is listed as one of the design criteria of my diagrams package. Nevertheless, unlike any of the others I've seen (including Mike's) it does provide facilities for you to define arrow heads in terms of whatever fonts you like. If there is demand (which I haven't heard) I am willing to include macros for using other fonts within my package. However fonts are a red herring: where Mike came in was on the *syntax* of macros for expressing diagrams. With respect, but since he has thrown down this gauntlet, I find it amazing that the author of a package with as bizzare a syntax as his, who has submitted to this list a LaTeX document which directly conflicts with the recent developments in LaTeX, should be involved in proposing an authoritative syntax. A great deal of thought and work has gone into the design of the language in my package. Indeed there are many features I could have added but haven't because I haven't thought of the right language for expressing them. ============= Last week I was reading a recent paper which used my diagrams (I'm not going to say whose). The version used must have been about five years old and really made me cringe, because of the bugs in it which were fixed long ago. If you have a version dated before July 1990 or which is undated *PLEASE* throw it away and use a new one. The diagrams look so much better nowadays! If there are any problems, I shall be happy to help. Paul ==============================================================================