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

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**Re: Arrow heights****From**:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)***Date**: Mon, 23 Aug 93 02:04 BST

Barbara writes... >knowing that knuth spent a lot of thought on how these symbols >should behave, and also knowing that not all of the criteria that >he considered were spelled out in the mf code, Yes, the CM arrows are quite well-behaved. There is still a noticably large gap between the arrow and its labels in: \[ \mathop\rightarrow\limit^x_x \] If you try the same trick with \Rightarrow you get much better results, because the height of \Rightarrow is at the top horizontal line, rather than the top of the arrow. I've been thinking about why DEK didn't do the same with \rightarrow, and I'm guessing that he wanted \rightarrow and \Rightarrow to be visually similar when decorated with scripts, so: \[ \rightarrow^x \Rightarrow^x \] produces superscripts at the same height. Any better ideas anyone? I've also noticed that \rightarrow and \Rightarrow suffer rather badly if put in a \vcenter, since the centre of their box isn't on the math axis. Is there a reason why \rightarrow and \Rightarrow weren't given negative depths, so they would \vcenter properly? Alan.

**References**:**Re: Arrow heights***From:*bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Arrow heights** - Next by Date:
**Re: new delimiters** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Arrow heights** - Next by thread:
**Additional arrows** - Index(es):