# Missing glyphs in Justin Ziegler work

• To: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: Missing glyphs in Justin Ziegler work
• From: Matthias Clasen <mclasen@sun2.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>
• Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:42:27 +0200 (MET DST)

I found that there are some symbols (some are glyphs, some are
constructed via macros) in plain LaTeX math, which are not mentioned
in Justin Zieglers work or in the the old archives of this list
relating to that work. Perhaps some long-term list members know if these
have just been overlooked, or if they have been discussed and the results
just did not make it into l3d007.tex.

1) The \not glyph used for negating relations is not present.

2) The following are composite in plain LaTeX, but they could well be done
as single glyphs (and then have own slots): \models, \neq,
\rightleftharpoons, \doteq, \cong, \notin.
(\neq is the only builtin symbol which uses \not, wouldn't it be
more logical to provide \neq as a single glyph, in analogy to
\notin vs \not\in ?)

3) \angle is a composite glyph in plain LaTeX, but a single glyph in
AMSLaTeX. Justin includes it in MS1, but surely it should be in MSP,
to avoid redefining it for plain LaTeX ?

4) Some control sequences (denoting different mathematical symbols) use
the same glyph in the plain LaTeX. The examples I came up with are
\backslash and \setminus and \Delta and \Laplace (well, this is not
actually in plain LaTeX, but it is a natural counterpart to \nabla and
in defining it there are currently no alternatives to using \Delta).
It might be a good idea to use separate slots for these symbols (even
if the glyphs are the same by default). Perhaps this issue is already
settled for \setminus throught the inclusion of \smallsetminus in MC.

Regards, Matthias