[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: on \eth and \thorn
- To: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- 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: email@example.com
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.
> 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.