[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: \opm and \omp
- To: Joerg.Knappen@uni-mainz.de (J%org Knappen)
- Subject: Re: \opm and \omp
- From: email@example.com (Ulrik Vieth)
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 11:51:01 +0200 (MET)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Content-Length: 1326
I think I should answer this. In a reply to my ideas, J\"org wrote:
> Ulrik, you told us that you need an \opm and an \omp. However, I cannot
> imagine how to design those thingies properly. My probelm is:
> in \oplus, the + attaches the surrounding circle and is lying perfectly
> symetric in it. If you now move the plus upward, the vertical stroke
> becomes shorter than the horizontal one.
> Ways out of this design dilemma:
> a) make the outer circle to an egg, to keep the other features of \oplus in
> b) tolerate a distorted + sing inside the \opm
> c) do not touch the circle any longer
> d) design another symbol for the intended meaning, e. g. consiting of two
> circles above each other, one containing +, the other -
> What do you think about it?
Well, I must admit I didn't consider this carefully enough when I needed
it and constructed a replacement. I personally would prefer option b)
to a), that is: I would prefer a distorted + sign to an egg-shaped circle.
However, the logical solution would probably be a circled \pm or + rather
than an \opm similar to \oplus. As a replacement I used the \copyright
circle but that wasn't really the right size. A generic circle, just big
enough to contain \pm or + might be the best solution. That means option c).