LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 20 May 2014 12:16:54 -0700
Reply-To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a5f1e0f835704f9d9b92d
From:
William F Hammond <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (845 bytes) , text/html (1857 bytes)
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:31 AM, David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> For that use I'd think
> a variant declaration which would define \mathbf to flip the mathcodes
> into the U+1Dxxx block
> using the base font rather than define it as a swutch to new \fam
> (\mathgroup)  and  would be useful.
>

So long as one minds the gaps in U+1Dxxx (actually the several gaps for
which the unicode folk seem to have thought the characters were previously
defined in the U+21xx block), though maybe it's not that much of an issue
for \mathbf itself as opposed to \mathcal, \mathfrak, and \mathbb.

At least they were thoughtful enough to leave those slots empty.  :-)

Just seizing the opportunity to make everyone aware of the gaps.

        -- Bill

-- 
William F Hammond
Email: [log in to unmask]
https://www.facebook.com/william.f.hammond
http://www.albany.edu/~hammond/


ATOM RSS1 RSS2