# Re: Squiggly Arrows

• To: Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>
• Subject: Re: Squiggly Arrows
• From: Hans Aberg <haberg@matematik.su.se>
• Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 13:15:21 +0200
• Cc: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Content-Length: 985

At 11:20 +0200 98/06/02, Ulrik Vieth wrote:
>So far, we have also kept the right-point squiggly arrow from LASY
>in MSP for latexsym-compatibility, but this is causing trouble for
>the non-CM versions.  I therefore wouldn't be too much opposed to
>dropping it completely from MSP, should the addition of further glyphs
>from the STIX collection eventually lead to a further reshuffling
>of the encoding tables.

I wonder if there us a graphic and/or traditional semantic difference
between the \leadsto latexsym arrow and the AMS Fonts \rightsquigarrow,
sufficiently big that people would want to use them side by side?

The thing is that I noted that when I wrote the arrow I wanted by hand,
then it looked like the \leadsto arrow, even though I at first used the
\rightsquigarrow in print. So it might be good having both, because
sometimes it seems difficult to find good descriptive arrows -- all the
other types seems to be occupied. (Same problem as for binary relations.)