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

Re: Thoughts

Concernant « Re: Thoughts », Ulrik Vieth écrit :
« Thierry Bouche:
«
« > another thing, about radicals again. A friend of mine, typographer in
« > the outer (xpress) world was very surprized by tex's behaviour to use
« > PS rules for building the extensible part of the radical (instead of a
« > glyph). I think his remark had to do with resolution dependant PS
« > yielding an inconsistent result in a PDF viewed on screen. However, it
« > seems obvious that a rule construct cannot be hinted, although a small
« > bar could be: is there any good reason to have tex compute the rule
« > geometry rather than just putting enough small overlapping bars as in
« > some plain tex macro as \hrulefill (if memory serves) ?
«
« I suppose the problem is that the use of a rule (as opposed to a
« glpyh) in this case is hard-wired into TeX's typesetting algorithms
« and cannot easily be changed without going for e-TeX or NTS.
«
« BTW, the Mathematica fonts do have a set of glyphs for this purpose,
« actually four glyphs to match the four sizes of raised radicals.
«
« Adding such glyphs to the extension font would be easy, but it doesn't
« make sense to do so as long as TeX won't make any use of it.
«
« Cheers, Ulrik.
«

having this glyph somewhere could however be usefull for other
programms (i remember that it had been said that everything non
tex-specific could be shared with the outer world)? This means that
this dash could be usefull in MSP where the `normal' radical sign
lives?

just speculations.
Thierry Bouche, Grenoble.
     « En France, depuis 1974, constate Ignacio Ramonet, la production
     de biens a augmenté de 70% mais le nombre des chômeurs a été
     multiplié par sept. Ce n'est pas la production de richesses qui est
     en panne mais leur distribution équitable. »
		 http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/