[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: integrals

JZ asks:

> We have already discussed the smallint that is in CMSY.
> Should we include a similar sized small O int ?
> That means that for integrals, there are three sizes available.
> Should we make that general for double and triple ints and oints ?
> JZ

Yes! By all means.

AJ writes:
> Ah, I'd hoped to get away without discussing the companion text font
> Each text font is envisaged as having a `companion' font, which would
> contain the glyphs that are missing from the T1 (Cork) encoding, such
> as <paragraph>, <yen>, <florin> and so on.  The definition of \yen
> would then be something like:
>   \def\yen{\companiontextfont{\char"XX}}
> It would then be up to each font selection scheme to implement
> \companiontextfont in an appropriate fashion, for example with NFSS2
> it would be something like:
>    \def\companiontextfont#1{{\fontencoding{X1}\selectfont#1}}
> This would avoid the use of \mathhexbox for accessing companion text
> glyphs, and would leave math mode for just math glyphs!

I'll strongly recommend that the MFG members take a look at the
following books, unless of course they'd rather create a
"TeX for poets".

"Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler

"Elements of Green's Functions and Propagation" by Barton

"Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory" by Reitz, Milford & Christy

"Solid State Physics" by Ashcroft & Mermin.

All of these books, especially "Gravitation" use a variety of
uc and lc greeks in bold, bold italic, sans , sans bold, sans bold
italic etc. Instead of the obvious way of typing a formula like
${\bf\tau}={\bf r}\times{\bf F}$, God knows how a user will be able to
typeset such a formula, assuming that the Cork encoding together with
the new proposed math encodings are adopted. By the way such a formula
is in each and every introductory physics textbook. There are
many many other examples I could give from physics where one
would need greek letters from a variety of different typefaces.
${\bf\mu}$ for magnetic moment, ${\bf\sigma}$ for Pauli spin
matrices, ${\bf\beta}={\bf v}/c$ etc.

I am curious as to how many members of the MFG have a background
in math, physics or engineering. After all TeX was primarily
intended for use by people in these professions. It's one
thing to be able to get a ${\bf\beta}$ that is perhaps
positioned slightly less than ideal and perhaps wait 10 extra
microseconds for that. It is quite a different
matter *not* to be able to get it at all.
For a practicing scientist in real life, the choice is quite obvious.
I wish members of MFG could see that most people who use TeX are
not "TeX-hackers". They simply want to write a paper or a book
without having to deal with all sorts of idiosyncracies. In
short they need a *tool* not a hobby. I have to say that I have
seen many people who are turned off by TeX solely
because of its "awkward" behavior (\bf\Gamma vs. \bf\gamma for example),
not because a superscript
was 13 microns higher than it might have been.

A little common sense never hurts. Or shouldn't.

Sami Sozuer