On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 08:58:11AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Hmm, tricky. So should I just go back to the old code (for now) ?
>
> What does the per-char-"correctness" buy us? LaTeX does not do it that way
> anyway (just try .^x vs 1^x).
It is used in other places too. I'm not sure that
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 07:23:06AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > The proper solution, of course would be t get the super/subscript placement
> > right...
>
> Hmm, tricky. So should I just go back to the old code (for now) ?
What does the per-char-"correctness" buy us? LaTeX does not do it that w
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 08:19:59AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Define "accurate". The "problem" is that cursor size depends on font size,
> not char size. Thsi could be fixed by making all mathboxes at least a high
> as the current font. But then, the super/subscript positioning is still
> brok
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:21:00AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>
> http://www.movement.uklinux.net/metrails.png
>
> Andre, can you look ? I suspect it's because xforms frontend has never
> returned accurate values or something.
Define "accurate". The "problem" is that cursor size depends on font s
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:21:00AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Andre, can you look ? I suspect it's because xforms frontend has never
> returned accurate values or something.
>
> (btw, isn't all these metrics calls a /little/ slow ??)
Do you see any real performance problem or do you have this im
