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/