# Re: Intergrals again

• To: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: Re: Intergrals again
• From: alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (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
>unslanted integrals.

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 purpose.

This doesn't necessarily need to be part of an alternative, since (in
cmex) if you say:

\def\fatrbrace{\delimiter"5000338 }

then you'll get a right brace that's always built from the extensible
glyphs.

>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.

Alan