# Re: cmex: a draft.

• To: alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: Re: cmex: a draft.
• From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
• Date: 12 Aug 1993 17:37:50 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk

    >It seems pretty clear, that the NEXTLARGER mechanism for selecting
>displaystyle versions of larger operators is just a hack used by Knuth

I'm not so sure about this, since I'm not convinced that a 14pt
\textstyle\int is the same as a 10pt \displaystyle\int.

i'm quite sure that a 14pt \textstyle\int is *not* the same as a 10pt
\displaystyle\int -- i examined the .mf code for most of the big
operators, as well as the use of these operators in art of computer
programming vol. 2 (the reason for tex's existence -- remember?).
you may call it a hack, but i believe it's a real design decision, and
that two sizes "per baseline" is the traditional, and preferable, way
to do it.
-- bb