## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Classic View Use Monospaced Font Show HTML Part by Default Show All Mail Headers Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

 Re: Multilingual Encodings Summary 2.2 Lars Hellström <[log in to unmask]> Mon, 21 May 2001 12:56:25 +0200 text/plain (32 lines) At 11.54 +0200 2001-05-21, Hans Aberg wrote: >So the best one could hope for, I think, is to build a layer above those >glyphs, say an empty set command that can expand to \emptyset or >\varnothing, a set membership command that can expand to either of \in or >the two epsilon variations, but there can be no restrictions on the glyphs >themselves in the sense that the use of one of them prohibits the other. My suggestion is rather that the current set of math symbol commands should be made into this layer (hence some commands which now produce different results would then by default produce identical results). It should still be possible to access to any glyph available in the fonts, but the author who wishes to do so must be prepared to first define a new command for accessing the glyph via some mixed-case command (cf. how one uses \DeclareTextSymbol for text today). There could also be a compability package which makes all commands that produce distinct results today continue to do this. Finally, for the more common task of selecting which glyphic variant of a character to use, there should be a simpler interface than giving an explicit code point, perhaps something like   \chooseglyph{\leq}{slanted} to make \leq produce what \leqslant does today. (If that glyph is not available, a warning like   Warning: Glyph variant slanted' of command \leq not defined.            Using std' variant instead. should be issued. \leqq and \eqslantless could also be considered glyph variants of \leq, unless they actually have distinct meanings somewhere.) Lars Hellström