@zygoloid, @jensmaurer: I think we really want to follow the logic of AmsMath's \dotsc, \dotsb, etc. macros, not blanket \cdots, and the guidance in #1390 should be adjusted accordingly.

@zygoloid said in #1390 that we wanted "center dots", but in this case, \ldots look substantially better. I've updated the pull request to use \ldots, so this can be applied right away once @zygoloid has changed his opinion.
@tkoeppe: We use both \ldots (45 appearances) and \dotsc (33 appearances). We should decide on one form. I've created #2032 to follow up on this.

@jensmaurer: they might not quite the same, though. \ldots is kind of generic, "presentational" form. \dotsc is specifically for use in math mode, I think: $x_0, x_1, \dotsc, x_n$. We should look more carefully at how \ldots and \dotsc are currently used; the status quo may already be WAI. (I.e. there may not be a text-equivalent of \dotsc, or rather, \ldots may already serve that role. The spacing in math mode is different, whence \dotsc.)

The predominant usage of \ldots in our standard is within math mode with comma-separated lists of things. The same statement applies to \dotsc.
As a first step, we should probably move towards \dotsc for comma-separated lists of things and see what remains.
@zygoloid?

As Jens found out, ldots and dotsc look the same in math mode.

In math mode, the Ams-dot macros provide a richer set of semantic information than the "raw" ldots/cdots, so it might be nice to retain/start using those in math mode. I'd continue using ldots in text mode. I'm not sure if we ever need cdots in text mode.

Let's move the discussion to #1390. This looks good to merge as-is, as a start down this road.