[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**Re: the check sign****From**:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)***Date**: Fri, 6 Aug 93 13:53 BST

>That said, I'm not too bothered about "special interest" symbols like >check, I was merely pointing out that I use them. Yes, there's a problem about which speciality symbols to include in the math fonts. Everything that is currently available in math mode will still be available, although some of the glyphs (such as \yen) will almost certainly be moved into a text font, and will be available by definitions of the form: \def\mathyen{\mathchoice{\hbox{\yen}}{\hbox{\yen}} {\hbox{\scriptsize\yen}}{\hbox{\scriptscriptsize\yen}}} where the definition of \scriptsize and \scriptscriptsize will be dependent on the font loading scheme (plain and LaTeX will need different definitions). > [| |] -- semantic brackets (almost universal) Definitely. > (| |) -- relational image (in Z) A possibility (these are the banana brackets I was talking about). > {| |} -- bag symbol (some dialects of CSP) A possibility. > <| |> -- bindings (in Z) A slight possibility. The last one is actually more like $\langle\!|$ and $|\!\rangle$. The first three could be made extensible. The last one can only extend as much as \langle and \rangle. Whether these glyphs are included or not will probably come down to how many slots we have spare! Alan.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: technical question** - Next by Date:
**Re: empty set symbol** - Prev by thread:
**the check sign** - Next by thread:
**slots for glyphs** - Index(es):