[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question about Euler arrows
- To: Ulrik Vieth <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Question about Euler arrows
- From: Matthias Clasen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:51:53 +0200 (MET DST)
- Cc: email@example.com
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Ulrik Vieth wrote:
> This weekend, I've been re-reading Knuth's article on ``Typesetting
> Concrete'' from TUGboat 10#1.
What a pity that these old TUGboat issues are not available online -
the only issue I own is the very last one and the next library that
holds TUGboat seems to be in Stuttgart.
> 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, `pfrom cmr (or ccr?)),
> since the Euler `-' and `pwon't fit without bumps.
> Opinions anyone?
One argument for using the Euler arrows might be compatibility with
> 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.
Over the weekend, I have created an auxiliary Euler font containing
some reversed glyphs (backepsilon, dnasrepma, Nabla, amalg, backquote)
which also contains a reversed single quote. I haven't tested it in
actual typesetting, just looked at it in font tables. Why do you
think that the single quote is not useable as \prime ? Could we
make it useable ?
PS.: I have also made some extensive changes to the way the Makefiles
and the tex driver files interact. Basically, there is one driver file
for each font now (ie one for xma*, one for xmb*,...) and the sizes
which are generated can be controlled from one location.
Perhaps I should prepare a new version so that you, Ulrik, can bring
your Concrete layout in a form suitable for this new setup ? It is also
much faster for testing purposes to rebuild just the 10pt size (which
is quite easy with the new setup).
Institut für Mathematische Logik
79104 Freiburg, Germany. Tel.: +49 (0) 761-203-5606