# \sim versus \thicksim

• To: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: \sim versus \thicksim
• From: Matthias Clasen <clasen@pong.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>
• Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:23:36 +0200

Last weekend, I did some extensive reshuffling of MSP/MS1/MS2 to free
the region 0-31 and improve the font tables. In doing so I stumbled
over the \thicksim and \thickapprox in MSP. Are these really different
enough from \sim and \approx to justify separate slots ? I doubt one
could use them next to each other in a single document.
It also seems slightly inconsistent to have \thicksim, but no \nthicksim
or \thickbacksim and having them contradicts the YAASP design decision
not to include any bold glyphs in the encodings.

If they are really needed and have to be different from \sim and \approx,
perhaps a \mathrel{\boldsymbol{\sim}} would be good enough for compatibility
with old documents ?

If nobody objects, I would vote for removing \thicksim and \thickapprox.

Regards, Matthias