Experiments on my thesis suggest that \mathpunct{.} is typically more correct than plain. for separators after \forall, and can be specified via:
% Hook into forall.fmt:
% Add proper spacing after forall-generated dots.
%format period_ = "\mathpunct{.}"
This could either be added to forall.fmt (but unsafe for existing documents, not sure what's your policy) or suggested in the documentation.
\mathpunct is a \mathrel brother for mathematical punctuation (like comma), which adds a bit more space after. I've still felt like adding even more space explicitly in especially complicated, but usually this looks quite nice IMHO (and has the right semantics).
For instance, $\forall x \mathpunct{.} x^2 > 0$ gives the following:
(tested in plain TeX with pdftex '\relax $\forall x \mathpunct{.} x^2 > 0$ \end').
EDIT: I'm just realizing there's an amazing amount of published material which doesn't use \mathpunct, here or for lambdas (#53), but I'm not yet convinced the result there looks as good or is as readable.
Experiments on my thesis suggest that
\mathpunct{.}is typically more correct than plain.for separators after\forall, and can be specified via:This could either be added to
forall.fmt(but unsafe for existing documents, not sure what's your policy) or suggested in the documentation.\mathpunctis a\mathrelbrother for mathematical punctuation (like comma), which adds a bit more space after. I've still felt like adding even more space explicitly in especially complicated, but usually this looks quite nice IMHO (and has the right semantics).For instance,
(tested in plain TeX with
$\forall x \mathpunct{.} x^2 > 0$gives the following:pdftex '\relax $\forall x \mathpunct{.} x^2 > 0$ \end').EDIT: I'm just realizing there's an amazing amount of published material which doesn't use
\mathpunct, here or for lambdas (#53), but I'm not yet convinced the result there looks as good or is as readable.