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

Re: Question about Euler arrows

>> 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.

Well, you might try ordering back issues from the TUG office.
However, my experience is that they only sell whole volumes, not
individual issues.  Besides, they were relatively expensive.

> One argument for using the Euler arrows might be compatibility with
> Euler.sty ?

Yes, but the metrics are the same, so it wouldn't break anything.  
The question is really: Have the Euler arrows been obsoleted by 
the revision of the CM arrows in 1992?  Perhaps Barbara knows an
appropriate way as to how and when to feed this question to Knuth?
Perhaps I should post a non-bug report about `Concrete Mathematics'
to the knuth-bugs email address?

> 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 ?

Thanks, for the font work.  As for the \prime, just have a look into
gkpmac.tex or euler.dtx.  The \prime is not redefined to use eufrak,
which means that it should come from cmsy.  Besides the \prime should
be a relatively big symbol in \textstyle since is actually taken as 
an exponent from the \scriptstyle font.  Just change the eufrak.etx
encoding to use `quoteright' rather than `prime' to fix the problem.

> 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).

Yes, please!  After so many patches, it's probably time for a new
release to get into sync.  Otherwise, we'll end up with a big mess.

Cheers, Ulrik.

P.S. Over the weekend, I have started preparing a new release of the
`concmath' package, which will include xccex[7-9], xcc{am,bm}[5-9]
along with the previous sizes.  In addition, I have changed several
font parameters to get into sync with the latest (1989) version of
Knuth's `concrete' fonts.  It appears that my original release of
`concmath' was based on obsolete (1988) version of `concrete' that 
was included in some early teTeX-releases.  Unfortunately, this 
update will imply a change of the metrics for xccmi8 and xccsy8, 
but everything else should be unchanged.