In Ch. 2 there are no subscripts to \eqto, \eq or =, not even in the type of \ap, where the two \eqto's would have subscripts X and Y, that may be different types. I can't recall whether this was a conscious decision, or whether no need was felt. In Ch. 3 there are 48 such occurrences (of gross > 500 occurrences of =), in particular in the parts of Ch. 3 that were written early on. Often there is no need at all, like in $\sum_{a:A} a \eqto_A a$. I propose to remove such subscripts, also in later chapters, unless they really clarify the expression. It would be weird not to have them in the introductory chapter, and introduce them later on. Alternatively, we could say something about this in the sections 2.5 and/or 2.6 (when \ap is defined). Please give me your votes/opinions on this.
In Ch. 2 there are no subscripts to \eqto, \eq or =, not even in the type of \ap, where the two \eqto's would have subscripts X and Y, that may be different types. I can't recall whether this was a conscious decision, or whether no need was felt. In Ch. 3 there are 48 such occurrences (of gross > 500 occurrences of =), in particular in the parts of Ch. 3 that were written early on. Often there is no need at all, like in$\sum_{a:A} a \eqto_A a$ . I propose to remove such subscripts, also in later chapters, unless they really clarify the expression. It would be weird not to have them in the introductory chapter, and introduce them later on. Alternatively, we could say something about this in the sections 2.5 and/or 2.6 (when \ap is defined). Please give me your votes/opinions on this.