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

Re: \sim versus \thicksim

Hans Aberg wrote:

>   I had a look at them, at found it difficult to distinguish them, even
> when side by side. Is this not what one should call in typesetting-lingo
> that \thicksim is a heavy version of \sim?
> 
>   The other question though is: Would it be useful with a boldface versions
> of \sim, clearly distingushable, so that they both can be used in a
> document? I think the answer is yes: It would be good if most, if not all
> symbols exist in a boldface version, too.

Yes, it is nice to have bold versions of all symbols, but one basic design
decision in YAASP was to have no slots for bold symbols in the encoding and
instead use bold fonts implementing the same encoding. That is why I proposed
to implement the \thicksim macro as \boldsymbol{\sim}. IIRC the boldmath.sty
version of \boldsymbol is clever enough to pick the symbol from the bold
version and construct a \mathrel atom from it.

Regards, Matthias