[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: \sim versus \thicksim
- To: Math Font Discuss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: \sim versus \thicksim
- From: Hans Aberg <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:38:33 +0200
Matthias Clasen <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>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.
I had a look at them, at found it difficult to distinguish them, even
when side by side. Is this not what one should call in typesetting-lingo
that \thicksim is a heavy version of \sim?
The other question though is: Would it be useful with a boldface versions
of \sim, clearly distingushable, so that they both can be used in a
document? I think the answer is yes: It would be good if most, if not all
symbols exist in a boldface version, too.
* Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:email@example.com>
* AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>