[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More missing glyphs ...
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: More missing glyphs ...
- From: Frank Mittelbach <Frank.Mittelbach@Uni-Mainz.DE>
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 21:30:18 +0200
Hans Aberg writes:
> The \diamond is listed as a binary operator, whereas the \lozenge is
> listed as a miscellaneous symbol, so these have different intended use, and
> the different design seems to reflect that.
the fact that a glyph has different usage, eg as a binary or as a
relation or as ... does not necessarily mean that we have two
different glyphs or need two different glyphs.
the fact that glyphs in two different fonts (by different designers)
look different is also not really a good indication.
similar examples of the above types are some of the lasy font symbols
like \rhd (or whatever the are called) which also have counterparts in
ams fonts and which also do have different status (one being used as
relation the others as binaries) but still can and should be
considered one glyph
it is often a vague boundary and thus cant be fully logically decided
but the rule of thumb should be that typical look of the glyph and not
its usage or name should decide
however, it is quite likely that one or the other thing got missed out.
for the moment i would suggest keeping it this way and putting that
question onto the list of open questions to be resolved
> One can also note the subtle differences between \lozenge and \diamondsuit.
> -- Perhaps one should try to get a compiled list with the symbols intended,
> or typical, use.
a very good suggestion, would you think of compiling one?