[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Binary Relations, draft 1
- To: "MicroPress Inc." <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Binary Relations, draft 1
- From: Taco Hoekwater <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 22:58:44 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-Length: 1493
>>>>> "MI" == MicroPress Inc <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
MI> Few minor suggestions/questions:
MI> 1. Sugg: change your sample so it includes the names--will be easier to
MI> refer to symbols for commenting.
Will do so later once I have a reasonable list of things to
include. Currently, there are too many weird spots. In fact, there are
two people actively involved with the names/inclusion lists, so the
first draft of any font is mostly for their sake (because metafont
characters don't have names, this is a bit cumbersome to do while
there are still a lot of changes possible).
MI> 2. Chars like \includeequal (176 for example):
MI> perhaps the line should be shorter than the "\include" part?
Will experiment. As per my initial message: this is a draft were
things are more or less adequate but definately not pretty.
MI> 3. \m-equal(135): why have it and not rely on \buildrel?
certain programs (almost all except TeX, in fact) don't have
buildrel. But more importantly: it's a unicode character, and I
strongly believe that unicode chars should exist as actual glyphs.
MI> 4. What are you going to do when you run out of math families (16!)?
Seriously, there are 15 families I can use, so that should be enough.
And the current layout is not at all final. We might move about half
of the characters out to "special purpose" fonts (as we have now in
TeX, where the wasy2 and stmaryrd fonts fill this role).