\title{Letters to the editor 1: Maths in \protect\LaTeX, Part 3}
\author{Philip Taylor}
\setcounter{figure}{0}%
\setcounter{table}{0}%
\begin{multicols}{2}[\Section{Letters to the editor 1: Maths in \protect\LaTeX, Part 3
}]%
I am delighted to see the esteemed Professor Bailey so wholeheartedly
deprecate the re-definition of a Plain \TeX\ command by an adjunct package
(\AMSTeX); what is less clear is why she does not vent the same spleen
on the author(s) of \LaTeX, who have pre-empted many more fundamental
commands than just \verb|\emptyset|.

Yours etc,

\makeatletter
\@signature
\makeatother

\begin{quote}
  \emph{The author replies:} I think that there is some confusion
  here, as well as a difference of opinion.  I was complaining about a
  redefinition in the file {\tt amstex.sty}, which is a package
  explicitly for use with the \LaTeX\ format. That is a different
  matter from a redefinition in a format file, such as \AMSTeX.

  In my opinion there is a world of difference between changing the
  definition of the name of a glyph, which any author may want to
  use, and changing the definition of a programming command. The
  former should absolutely not happen, because it affects people who
  have no idea how to get round it. I am agnostic about the latter,
  but would not be surprised if it were necessary in a format file.

  \rightline{R.~A.~Bailey, QMW}
\end{quote}


\end{multicols}%