[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**Re: cmex: a draft.****From**:*bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>***Date**: 12 Aug 1993 17:37:50 -0400 (EDT)**Cc**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

>It seems pretty clear, that the NEXTLARGER mechanism for selecting >displaystyle versions of larger operators is just a hack used by Knuth I'm not so sure about this, since I'm not convinced that a 14pt \textstyle\int is the same as a 10pt \displaystyle\int. i'm quite sure that a 14pt \textstyle\int is *not* the same as a 10pt \displaystyle\int -- i examined the .mf code for most of the big operators, as well as the use of these operators in art of computer programming vol. 2 (the reason for tex's existence -- remember?). you may call it a hack, but i believe it's a real design decision, and that two sizes "per baseline" is the traditional, and preferable, way to do it. -- bb

**References**:**Re: cmex: a draft.***From:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)

- Prev by Date:
**re to mike downes.** - Next by Date:
**Re: cmex: a draft.** - Prev by thread:
**Re: cmex: a draft.** - Next by thread:
**Re: cmex: a draft.** - Index(es):