# Re: on \eth and \thorn

• To: Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>
• Subject: Re: on \eth and \thorn
• From: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
• Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:23:32 GMT
• Cc: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk

Ulrik wrote --

> True.  But I think it is wrong to throw \eth and \thorn into the same
> category as the upright d'.  The upright d' and the upright \partial
> are standard when typesetting mathematics strictly according to the
> rules applicable in physics and engineering,

That seems to be the case.

> while \eth and \thorn are
> a very specialized notation in a very specialized area, which was
> probably invented by the author of a particular book, when he ran out
> of letters that might otherwise be used to denote some special kinds
> of differentials.  (Or are there any other references for their use?)

This is the type of question that is very difficult to answer:
sometimes a notation like that does become standard within a
specialised area and may thus have a status similar to many of the
symbols in the ams fonts.  I think it is probably best to leave out
such things until good evidence emerges that a symbol has achieved
the status of some standard, even a specialised one.

> If you really want to go back to basics and throw out all the
> questionable symbols, throwing out \eth and \thorn may well be
> justified, but the upright d' should be considered independently.

Agreed.

> BTW, in the latest version of the paper I simply commented out the
> paragraph on \eth and \thorn to save some space, so it currently
> leaves this question open.

Sounds sensible.

chris

`