# Re: technical question

• To: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: Re: technical question
• From: Michael Downes <MJD@MATH.AMS.ORG>
• Date: 11 Aug 1993 11:53:33 -0400 (EDT)

> Would it be possible, using the existant macro in plain to produce an
> estensible integral sign ?
>
> on a font and charlist point of view, there is no problem !
> But i'm wondering if the \left\int bit would work.
> how should \int be defined ?

Is it possible, that in a paper where \left\int is used, it will be
desired to have \int always act as a delimiter, and never in the plain
TeX way? If so, changing the definition and syntax of \int might
be the best approach, so that the \left is built-in. For example:

\def\int#1#2{\left\intdelim #1\right.#2}

with usage:

\int{f(x)}{dx}

(I don't recall from previous mail, is the differential placed after
the \right. or before?)

Of course there are complications with subscripts and superscripts
that would have to be dealt with.

As a syntax of this sort could also handle non-delimiter integrals,
the obvious next thought is a question: whether the old integral
syntax should be retired in favor of a new syntax. The old
backward-compatibility viper rears its ugly head. Using a new name
e.g. \integral would help, but at the cost of taking longer to type.

As for backward compatibility in general: Of course it is very