I am currently writing a master's dissertation. In this dissertation I have chosen to typographically separate logical argument, (Theorems, Proofs, and Definitions) from *aids to understanding* (Examples, Remarks and Asides). 


Basically, sections that are intended to be rigorous is written in normal font, and sections that are intended to help the reader understand what is being written, but are not fundamental are written *italicised*. 


The intention is simple: One who is familiar with the area is likely only checking definitions or theorems, and can focus on the normal text without hunting through a mountain of prose that they are already familiar with.


Someone who is new to the area, and who is not yet interested in the nitty-gritty details of a formal definition can focus on the *italicised* text, perhaps going back to the normal text later for something more concrete.


However my supervisor seems to think this is a bad idea, and has asked me to find precedents for this from well-known authors. Has anyone seen something like this before?


PS. When i say italicised, i actually mean only slanted. It's much easier to read than actually-italicised text. I could change the font to sans-serif for those sections.



Typographically separating logical argument from explanation and example
If you really want to cite an example then you could say that Jantzen does this in the introduction to some of his chapters in "Lectures on Quantum Groups"


Rather than making a typographical distinction, why not just create a 'Remark' environment for chatty sections?


