[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Intergrals again
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Intergrals again
- From: email@example.com (Alan Jeffrey)
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 19:22 BST
>What about the euler extension fonts?
We shouldn't mix the Euler symbols with CM symbols, they're very
different in weight and shape.
>My personal proposal would be not to include the euler style integrals in
>the new extended encoding, but to provide a parallel encoded font with
Agreed. The choice of integral style is part of the font
implementation, similar to the other glyph shape decisions.
>The alternative extension font can have equal weight extesible braces for
This doesn't necessarily need to be part of an alternative, since (in
cmex) if you say:
then you'll get a right brace that's always built from the extensible
>A last point: After the debatte on \smallint, do we need all integrals in
>smallint-style, like \smalloint etc. ?
I'd say yes, every large operator should have a small variant.