[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: V0.4 details
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: V0.4 details
- From: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 12:21:51 +0200
- Cc: email@example.com, Joerg.Knappen@uni-mainz.de
> For the growing delimiters I have just copied the sizes from yhcmex, Yannis
> Haralambous extension of cmex. I do not want to imply that these sizes should
> all be included in a cmex replacement, just that there should be enough slots
> to enable something like my xmb with lots of delimiter sizes. Seeing
> yhcmex was my motivation for splitting MX.
> Perhaps there should be a standard mechanism of communicating the \big,
> \bigg, \Big, \Bigg etc sizes between the font and the macro level.
As I see it, there are actually two different kinds of extra sizes:
- intermediate sizes in between the usual \big, \Big, \bigg, \Bigg,
which are provided for all kinds of delimiters
- extra sizes beyond \Bigg, which are provided only for a subset of
delimiters that either don't have an extensible version (e.g.
angles, slash, backslash) or that look better using a ready-made
design instead of the extensible version (e.g. parens, braces)
As for the first kind, I'm unconvinced whether the intermediate sizes
are really needed or if they are desirable to use at all given the
size mechanism of \big, \Big, \bigg, \Bigg corresponding to formulas
of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 lines tall.
As for the second kind, adding those extra sizes might be a good idea,
yet the question remains how many sizes are needed and in which steps
they should come. If we exclude the intermediate steps, maybe 8 sizes
(i.e. 4 new ones beyond \Bigg) might be preferable to 12 or 14 sizes.
- Re: V0.4 details
- From: Matthias Clasen <firstname.lastname@example.org>