# Re: new double sized operators:

• To: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: Re: new double sized operators:
• From: jeremy@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Jeremy Gibbons)
• Date: 18 Aug 1993 09:58:47 +1200

> >    \item Two sized $\bigcirc$ with $\vee$ inside.  $\bigcirc > > \!\!\!\!\!\vee$ proposed name: \cn{ovee}, and \cn{bigovee}.
> >      cspex
>
> Ah these are in cspex are they...  Jim, does this mean you've actually
> used them?  Perhaps I should take back my comments!

The other day I saw a colleague here use \ovee and \owedge (on the
whiteboard, not in TeX; I don't believe he knows they exist in TeX) as
variations on \vee and \wedge (to make a distinction between two levels of
logic or something). So there y'go. No big variants, though.

> >    \item A wide Dijkstra choice. CSPEX
>
> If this is the glyph I think it is, it's not quite a wide Dijkstra
> choice in shape (although mathematically it's the same thing as
> Dijkstra choice).  The two glyphs are:
>
>    <dijkstrachoice> looks remarkably like [ and ] glued together.
>
>    <oblong> looks like <sqcap> but with the square completed.
>
> <oblong> is used in CSP in conjunction with <sqcap>, so it's quite
> important that they look the same.  In particular, then need to be of
> the same width since if they're not formulae sometimes don't line up
> properly...

Perhaps the shape of \oblong is fixed, but I think Dijkstra choice "looks
remarkably like [ and ] glued together" simply because there was no other
way of making one on a typewriter; I personally wouldn't object to having
just the \oblong.

Jeremy