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

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk, MJD@MATH.AMS.ORG***Subject**:**Re: Cyrillic in math****From**:*sozueh@rpi.edu***Date**: Thu, 19 Aug 93 11:31:08 EDT

> > one could write for example $\int_{\rm all\ space} ...$ or > > $\rho=\rho_{\rm free}+\rho_{\rm bound}$ etc. clearly when such a > > No, what your example shows is the poor design of the plain TeX way of > writing the bits of text `free' and `bound' directly in math mode. > They should better be done in text mode, not math mode, by putting > them into an \hbox (and a \mathchoice, as in the \text macro of > AMSTeX). Consider what happens if you write {\rm quasi-free} in math > mode, as opposed to \text{\rm quasi-free}. The surprise to the user of > little problems like this seems to me about the same as the \bf\gamma > surprise that you wrote about earlier. i might think your argument has substance if you can show me *any* way of getting a bold upright gamma. if i get what i need when i type \bf G or \bf g or \bf \Gamma, but don't get what would be expected when i type \bf \gamma, i don't think this is my fault. this is like having a quarter of screws in a device left-handed and the rest right handed for no apparent reason---other than perhaps just lack of (fill in your favorite reason here) on the part of its designer. i don't think there is any value in trying to make up lame excuses for something that's so obviously irrational. if there is a way to fix it, why not do so? sami

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Cyrillic in math***From:*Michael Downes <MJD@MATH.AMS.ORG>

**Re: Cyrillic in math***From:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)

- Prev by Date:
**news** - Next by Date:
**extensible delimiters** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Cyrillic in math** - Next by thread:
**Re: Cyrillic in math** - Index(es):