Hello,
I have the following X/X.org fonts ('ii' means installed) on my laptop:
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
|
Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Architecture Description
+++-================-============-============-=====================================
ii xfonts-100dpi 1:1.0.5 all 100 dpi fonts for X
ii xfonts-75dpi 1:1.0.5 all 75 dpi fonts for X
ii xfonts-base 1:1.0.5+nmu1 all standard fonts for X
un xfonts-cyrillic <none> <none> (no description available)
ii xfonts-encodings 1:1.0.4-2.2 all Encodings for X.Org fonts
un xfonts-misc <none> <none> (no description available)
ii xfonts-scalable 1:1.0.3-1.3 all scalable fonts for X
ii xfonts-utils 1:7.7+7 amd64 X Window System font utility
programs
But today I opened the QUAT domain page in HyperDoc and in the source file
the documentation of:
rational? : % -> Boolean
++ rational?(q) returns {\it true} if all the imaginary
++ parts of \spad{q} are zero and the real part can be
++ converted into a rational number, and {\it false}
++ otherwise.
I do not see any formatting difference for \it{} or \sapd{} in HyperDoc,
it is like simple text. Is it intentional or are my settings wrong
somewhere?
- Greg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/CAHnU2dZhw5xbBozgcD4xweoBpO_%2Bvd%3D%3D96jtJfY7LzU3%3DJiHWA%40mail.gmail.com.
