On 21/05/2014 11:49, Will Robertson wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 
Hi Ulrike et al,


On 20 May 2014, at 11:34 pm, Ulrike Fischer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


So in my opinion the current \mathbf-etc setup in unicode-math
actually did the right thing and improved the standard
\math-commands.

I’m replying out of order, but I’m still inclined to agree with you here :)
The big problem was not handling \mathit properly.

or at least the problem is more apparent for italic as the differences between
math and text setting are more glaring in that case:-)


[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 



I wouldn't like to loose this completly. If \mathbf
pointed to a textfont then everyone who wants the real math symbols
would have to replace \mathbf in their code by \symbf. And back
again if he wants to use a text font. 

Wouldn't it be possible to have a "\usetextfontasmathbf..." command
which disables the mapping to the math plane? So that one doesn't
have to switch between \symbf and \mathbf depending on the font
setup of a document?

It has been possible for a long time to select a text font for a math alphabet in unicode-math, but this feature was probably not documented very well.
If you try to select a particular unicode range such as \mathbfup and a font simply doesn’t have it (well, it only checks “A” I think), the remapping doesn’t occur and you get the ascii-range glyphs:

Yes, although I think what's needed is an explicit way to do this rather than relying on heuristics
for example while answering a tex.sx question I wanted to use rsfs (or euler) for script in addition or instead of
the script in stix because well just because that's what the question asked for, and it seemed  that the easiest way
currently is to use \mathup{\euler{A B C to disable the mathcode mapping which works but looks a bit odd.



David