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

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**More rubbish about arrows****From**:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)***Date**: Sat, 14 Aug 93 13:21 BST

I'm sure you're all heartily sick and tired of hearing about arrows by now, but... I've been playing around with VFs trying to implement the control glyphs for the arrow-building kit I sent out last week. As a reminder, the syntax there was: <leftarrow><rightarrow><extarrow>^* For example, a negated long long right arrow was: <leftarrowhead><rightarrowhead><extarrowone><extarrowneg><extarrowone> Unfortunately, it turns out that this syntax is a total pig to implement using TeX's ligtable, since the kern table ends up spending most of its time swapping the <rightarrow> and <extarrow> glyphs around. A much simpler syntax to implement is: <leftarrow><extarrow>^*<rightarrow> The advantage of this is that it's much easier to implement! The disadvantage is that you can't have a single <leftarrownone> control glyph meaning `there is no arrow on the left end of this glyph'. Instead, you need to have different <leftarrow> control glyphs depending on whether the <rightarrow> is a single arrow, a double arrow, a triple arrow, two stacked harpoons, or two stacked arrows, since these need different extension glyphs. Unless anyone objects violently to this change (seems pretty unlikely to me!) I'll put together a test implemention of this version of the arrow-building kit, and see what it looks like. Alan.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: BBB versus Fractur** - Next by Date:
**Non-english mathematics (not More on subscripts and superscripts)** - Prev by thread:
**mail** - Next by thread:
**Non-english mathematics (not More on subscripts and superscripts)** - Index(es):