Hi Hans, Taco and Mojca, There is a bit of inconsistency between the two subformula numbering methods (\startsubformulas that I wrote, and \NR[+][a] of \startalign). While writing a paper I realized that both of them are needed. For example \startsubformulas[eq:encoder] \placeformula \startformula \startalign \NC Z_1 \EQ c_1 (X_1), \NR[eq:encoder 1] \intertext{and for $t=2,\dots,T$,} \NC Z_t \EQ c_t (X_1, \dots, X_t, \tilde Y_1, \dots, \tilde Y_{t-1}). \NR[eq:encoder t] \stopalign \stopformula \stopsubformulas and \placeformula \startformula \startalign \NC \hat X_t \EQ g_1(Y_1) \NR[eq:decoder][a] \NC M_1 \EQ l_1(Y_1) \NR[eq:memory][a] \intertext{and for $t=2,\dots,T$,} \decrementnumber[formula] \decrementnumber[formula] \NC \hat X_t \EQ g_t(Y_t, M_{t-1}) \NR[+][b] \NC M_t \EQ l_t(Y_t, M_{t-1}) \NR[+][b] \stopalign \stopformula However, the startsubformulas uses \@@fnseparator as separator while \NR[+][a] uses no separator. It is relatively straight forward to make \NR honor the separator, in \dododoformulanumber change \edef\hetnumber{#2} to \edef\hetnumber{\@@fnseparator#2} and \edef\hetnumber{#4} to \edef\hetnumber{\@@fnseparator#4} To maintain backward compatibility we can change \setupsubformulas[separator=\@@fmseparator] to \setupsubformulas[separator=] Any comments? I think that Mojca and I are the only people who use \startsubformulas right now (my fault, have not documented them), so breaking the backward compatibility of \startsubformulas should not be too big a problem. Aditya