[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: Matthias Clasen <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:20:39 +0200 (MET DST)
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> it is probably true that some mathematicians put their hands on any
> symbol they could reach from within TeX to get more symbols available
> (i did use them in my diploma thesis myself :-) and perhaps there is
> even an established branch (although i would like to know some more
> details before believing the latter) but i would claim it is
> sufficiently rare to allow for sacrifying encoding compatibility of
> the core in that case. it is still no problem for me to rerun my
> thesis with the new encoding by loading those symbols from either an
> extra font.
> at least that was the common opinion back then.
Well, I have seen sharp and flat being used in publications about
modules, for the classes of flat and pure-injective modules (guess which
glyph denotes which class !). These concepts are `dual' in a certain
sense. I guess that there are other dual concepts for which flat
and sharp are used.
To Alan Jeffrey:
Speaking about flat and sharp, I just noticed that the sharp and natural
glyphs are in the wrong order in the file OMS.etx which is part of the