# Re: cmex: a draft.

• To: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: Re: cmex: a draft.
• From: alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)
• Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 18:35 BST

Well, it certainly woke me up...

>  For operators, I shall consider two completely separate policies. In
>  one case I will consider that \texttt{cmex} is unchanged, and
>  loaded in three sizes. The other policy is to consider that if
>  \texttt{cmex} is loaded in three sizes, we no longer need to have
>  two sizes of operators in \texttt{cmex}, thus \cn{bigcup} would not
>  have a successor in its font.

There is a third policy not mentioned here, which is loading cmex at
three sizes, whilst maintaining the two different sizes of operators.
This would provide all the advantages of the first option (such as
appropriately sized large delimiters, accents and operators in
\scriptstyle and \scriptscriptstyle) whilst allowing the large
operators to be set in the traditional style without complex macros
involving \mathchoice.

It is worth noting that the larger operator is *not* the same as an
expanded version of the smaller operator.  For example, the larger
\bigsqcup is taller and thinner than the smaller\bigsqcup, and thee
colour of \int changes radically between the smaller and larger
variants.

>  In both cases, things could be improved if macros were written to
>  override the present behavior of \cn{bigsqcup}. I would think of
>  things like \cn{mathchoice}, but $\ldots$

The but' in this case meaning that the macros would be so slow and
unreliable as to be unusable :-)

As you may detect, I'm quite keen on the large operators continuing to
be accessed by NEXTLARGER entries...

Alan.

`

• References:
• cmex: a draft.
• From: Justin Ziegler <ziegler@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de>