[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 16:13:33 +0200
Matthias Clasen <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>No, I'm not sure that \thicksim is a bold version of \sim, but that is not the
>point. The main argument for not having separate slots for \thicksim is that
>the \sim and \thicksim glyphs in the cm version are not sufficiently different
>to be used for two different things in the same document. \emptyset and
>\varnothing show much more difference (although I don't know of a paper in
>which the two are used to denote different things).
>The \boldsymbol proposal was just meant as a way to ensure backwards
>compatibility for old documents.
But is it not safer to label the stuff what it really is? I mean, if you
put \thicksim into a boldface font, then that will screw up all documents
that want to use \thicksim as the right and only verions of \sim, reserving
the bold symbol for something else.
So why not start referring to two different sets of non-bold fonts (of
the same encoding)?
* Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:email@example.com>
* AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>