On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:07:20AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:37:16AM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > It is not hard to generate the information we need for all latex symbols
> > from the latex files (fontmath.ltx and amssymb.sty).
>
> Looks like you are volunteering.
Ronny Buchmann wrote:
> > If that support comes for free? Why should we not?
> i would like it outside mathed, there are much \text* macros out there
>
> what packages define macros for symbols in math mode and have free postscript fonts?
do a search for type1 in
http://www.act.cmis.csiro.au/g
* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-08-23 11:34] wrote:
> > - so-called latex-symbols:
> > - we have symbols without any package
> > - with package latexsym
> > - amsmath symbols
> > - lots of other packages with special symbols,
> > like wasysym, marvosym a.s.o.
> >
> > it makes
> i would like to see the external symbol table in 1.2
> the autogeneration inside lyx is really for 1.3 (if ever)
That's what I think, too. But the first is Lars' decision.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-08-23 11:07] wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:37:16AM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > It is not hard to generate the information we need for all latex symbols
> > from the latex files (fontmath.ltx and amssymb.sty).
>
> Looks like you are volunteering.
>
> - so-called latex-symbols:
> - we have symbols without any package
> - with package latexsym
> - amsmath symbols
> - lots of other packages with special symbols,
> like wasysym, marvosym a.s.o.
>
> it makes sense to support the latex and amsmath one, but the
> other ones ???
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 12:08:55PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > > For users
> >
> > Users should use the lyx math-macro mechanism
>
> Users use third-party .sty files all the time. It's not uncommon to
> co-operate with people who do not use LyX.
>
> > >, and packages,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 12:08:55PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > For users
>
> Users should use the lyx math-macro mechanism
Users use third-party .sty files all the time. It's not uncommon to
co-operate with people who do not use LyX.
> >, and packages, which define new macros which LyX hasn't
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:55:39AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:37:16AM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> >
> > It is not hard to generate the information we need for all latex symbols
> > from the latex files (fontmath.ltx and amssymb.sty).
> > Therefore, I don't see the need f
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:37:16AM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> It is not hard to generate the information we need for all latex symbols
> from the latex files (fontmath.ltx and amssymb.sty).
Looks like you are volunteering.
Would be nice to have the symbols in some kind of text file
latexname
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:37:16AM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
>
> It is not hard to generate the information we need for all latex symbols
> from the latex files (fontmath.ltx and amssymb.sty).
> Therefore, I don't see the need for the mechanism you described for parsing
> unknown macros.
For user
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:54:15AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > 3 on input of an unknow macro (be it from a file or manually):
> > how big is the chance that we find an unknown macro which we can draw?
> > (given that we will include all macros we know)
>
> Pretty high given that we don't
> > 3 on input of an unknow macro (be it from a file or manually):
> how big is the chance that we find an unknown macro which we can draw?
> (given that we will include all macros we know)
Pretty high given that we don't include every macro we know. _I_ certainly
do not want to insert a thous
* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-08-23 07:03] wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 08:09:34PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > And, potentially, you could actually properly display (simple) macros
> > that the user himself might have defined in the LaTeX preamble window,
> > directly, or by \use
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 08:09:34PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> And, potentially, you could actually properly display (simple) macros
> that the user himself might have defined in the LaTeX preamble window,
> directly, or by \usepackage'ing something which LyX doesn't know
> about.
>
> The main po
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 08:58:37PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > I didn't have one handy when I wrote the first mail.
> >
> > I have now located it:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel%40lists.lyx.org/msg21960.html
>
> We are doing something resembling this "macro interpretatioN" on
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 08:15:16PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 07:04:14PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > I recall demonstrating how we could use LaTeX itself to generate the
> > required information.
>
> I don't recall this. Maybe you have a pointer in the archives?
I did
> I didn't have one handy when I wrote the first mail.
>
> I have now located it:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel%40lists.lyx.org/msg21960.html
We are doing something resembling this "macro interpretatioN" on a
coarser level with the "predefined" macros in math_mactotable.C.
I certai
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 07:04:14PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> I recall demonstrating how we could use LaTeX itself to generate the
> required information.
I don't recall this. Maybe you have a pointer in the archives?
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 02:47:43PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> This means we'd need to expand the latexkeys structure to hold information
> about two fonts (X and TeX). No problem, but a lot of work for 300 symbols
> or so...
I recall demonstrating how we could use LaTeX itself to generate the
* Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-08-22 14:37] wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 11:11:31AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > Could anybody please try the attached patch and report failure or success?
>
> It works, but the rendering is not correct.
> It appears that the problem is only wit
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 02:47:43PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I wonder why this kind of shifting is needed at all. If I don't do
> anything, the chars end up directly below the baseline, as if they all had
> an ascent of 0 and a descent equal to their height.
>
> Is this a problem with the fon
> It works, but the rendering is not correct.
> It appears that the problem is only with the cmex font, so
> a possible fix is
>
> void MathSymbolInset::metrics(MathStyles st) const
> {
> size(st);
> MathTextCodes code_ = code();
> mathed_char_dim(code_, size_, sym_->id, ascent_
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 02:32:28PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Compiles and seems to work if I install the bluesky type1 cm fonts. With the
> exception that the box is drawn below the formula instead around it (see
> attached file).
In my previous mail I send a fix for that.
> I created fonts
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 11:11:31AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> Could anybody please try the attached patch and report failure or success?
It works, but the rendering is not correct.
It appears that the problem is only with the cmex font, so
a possible fix is
void MathSymbolInset::metrics(Ma
Compiles and seems to work if I install the bluesky type1 cm fonts. With the
exception that the box is drawn below the formula instead around it (see
attached file). I created fonts.dir and .scale with type1inst and needed to
do the following (not sure if I picked the right euler fonts):
+
Could anybody please try the attached patch and report failure or success?
Using this patch, I can see \oint, \bigsqcup and \sqcup drawn on screen
using -*-cmex-*- and -*-amsa-*- fonts from the te_pscm rpm (requiered by
te_pdf.rpm) on my SuSE 6.1
I do not know how common they are, but I can't
27 matches
Mail list logo
