> Also I never said a calculus text should be an encyclopedia - but if we > are going to ask students to spend good money on one shouldn't [it] > contain topics which they will need later on.
I think we work at cross purposes with ourselves when we conceive a book as both a text and a reference. The purposes are fundamentally different. I think that the "good money" that students lay out for a text should be laid out for just that--a text: a book conceived as a book that might do some teaching and nothing more. This is especially so because a rather high percentage of them sell the text once they've finished the last course it's required for. Let them take the money they get from selling that text and put it toward a *good* reference that doesn't make any pretence of being a text. (Are you reading, publishers? Here's a potential new market...)
So I think that the argument that HC is a poor reference is a rationalization of a preconceived opinion.
> Also I don't think including the > more than 20 omited topics - which are FUNDAMENTAL - is asking too much.
This smacks of a canon, and I think it's time we knew just what that canon is. What are the "more than 20 omitted topics", and why are they "FUNDAMENTAL"? (And, as in my "reformed" courses, unsupported answers aren't worth very much.)
> I assume Lou must be supplementing these topics.
Why would I do that?
(Hint: I do supplement, but not necessarily the "FUNDAMENTAL" topics.)
(Further Hint: I don't believe I've ever explicitly written that I support the Harvard text--which I think some mistakenly use to characterize reform. I *know* that I've never written that I use it.)