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

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**Question about Euler arrows****From**:*Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>***Date**: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:29:48 +0200

This weekend, I've been re-reading Knuth's article on ``Typesetting Concrete'' from TUGboat 10#1. I noticed that the explanation given for the design of the Euler arrows in euex10 was to make the arrowheads darker in order to match the color of the Euler fonts. If you look at the code in ebigob.mf, you'll find that this was realized by setting |bar:=rule_thickness;| and copying the code for the arrows from the CM font programs in symbol.mf (as of 1988 or some such). Meanwhile, in 1992, Knuth has redesigned the CM arrows, making the arrowheads not only darker (by a smilar change as above), but also bigger by a change of the font programs. Now, I was wondering, if there is still any justification to have different Euler arrows at all, or whether the post-1992 CM arrows would do just as well? That is, should the Euler version of MSP really take the arrows from euex10 or better use CM arrows instead? Note that in both cases, the extension pieces \relbar and \Relbar must come from CM anyway (`-' from cmsy, `=' from cmr (or ccr?)), since the Euler `-' and `=' won't fit without bumps. Opinions anyone? Cheers, Ulrik. P.S. Another comment about Euler: It appears that the \prime should still come from cmsy (matching the \backprime from msam). The single quote from eufm10, which apparently was taken in my previous tests, seems to be usable only for text.

- Prev by Date:
**Integral kerning** - Next by Date:
**Re: Question about Euler arrows** - Prev by thread:
**Integral kerning** - Next by thread:
**Re: Question about Euler arrows** - Index(es):