Re comments on 2alpha

Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.92740AD4@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:08 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.92740AD4" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re comments on 2alpha Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 21:23:56 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 507 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.92740AD4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable First of all thanks. > % corrupted, I'll send an encoded version (but then they get corrupted > % too, as Frank's tracefnt.uue was for me, until I swopped tilde and > % circumflex). The document would have been unprocessable if it had used a few more special characters but fortunately this wasn't the case (dollar and circumflex have both been dollars here). Maybe you could send via a different gateway (ask Chris). A few comments: > Now, what I {\em wanted} was for sizes 5, 6 and 11 to take the > literal supplied, and for other sizes to try first `cm' and then > `cmtwlv' to find a font. Then I hit the fatal flaw --- I have no way > of making my first function {\em fail} if the font does not exist. Or > am I missing something? The first function is tried, and produces a > \TeX\ error, of course. Yes and no, but I did know that this was a looser already. You can of course check your range inside the function and if doesn't fit just not generate \external@font. Then the algorithm will check the next function. But this not the best solution to the problem. I think that it would better (as Sebastian already said) to allow function and range in the <..> and making the empty function the standard scaling function. Question is function followed by range or range followed by function, the latter seems to be more logical to me, e.g. <10-cmxiipt> with Sebastians words. Comments? > \item The whole business of the $$ seems a bit arcane. If No question, I think there is such a remark in the margin isn't it? It was a nice straight forward implementation when there have been only fixed sizes. > you want a familiar syntax, how about having a default of 0, and any > other values put in [] before the string eg \verb|<6>[1]cmr10|? Why not? It could be interpreted as the optional argument to the standard function for loading. It could then also be used as optional argument to any loading function defined by the user. This needs more thought but seems a possible way. What about more than one argument? comma separation? or what? > \item But all this (and the PostScript code) is going to cause > difficulties because of the mismatch between FM's `simple size' and > the scaling factor. May I remark that this is not my mismatch but rather a compatibility mismatch:-) But I'm happy to correct it next time. In my eyes the best solution would be to go for typographical sizes (Don gave the list, or at least the common part of it) but this means that somebody must provide the mf sources for the full set of fonts in use. Please ... don't tell me that I can find some of them there and others here. What is necessary is that somebody collects the stuff generates the missing ones (perhaps with sauters stuff) and presents the full packages. Also important is to write generation scripts (for mfjob Dominik but also for as many OS as possible). It is unfortunately the fact that the people in the TeX world loose knowledge more and more because they no longer fight against the OS to get the damn thing running, but rather use a running system. A second solution would be to use 14.4 as the size for a while until fonts in standard sizes are available. > \verb|{14.4}|. Frank noted the problem in the latter case > of the strings getting bigger, but more important is the fact that > the numbers then become unamenable to \TeX\ arithmetic, of the type > used in the function above. That's not true, only cumbersome. You could use \ifdim instead of \ifnum that works fine. > \item Choosing a `nearby size' --- can someone suggest a suitable > occasion for doing this? I don't see the point at all. A said some words in another message, beside making beautiful pieces of art one might to get information processed and in this case it might be acceptable to use a nearby size if the real size is not available on a particular installation. Frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.92740AD4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re comments on 2alpha

First of all thanks.

> % corrupted, I'll send an encoded version (but = then they get corrupted
> % too, as Frank's tracefnt.uue was for me, until = I swopped tilde and
> % circumflex).

The document would have been unprocessable if it had = used a few more
special characters but fortunately this wasn't the = case (dollar and
circumflex have both been dollars here). Maybe you = could send via a
different gateway (ask Chris).

A few comments:

> Now, what I {\em wanted} was for sizes 5, 6 = and 11 to take the
> literal supplied, and for other sizes to = try first `cm' and then
> `cmtwlv' to find a font. Then I hit the = fatal flaw --- I have no way
> of making my first function {\em fail} if = the font does not exist. Or
> am I missing something? The first function = is tried, and produces a
> \TeX\ error, of course.

Yes and no, but I did know that this was a looser = already. You can of
course check your range inside the function and if = doesn't fit just
not generate \external@font. Then the algorithm will = check the next
function. But this not the best solution to the = problem. I think that
it would better (as Sebastian already said) to allow = function and
range in the <..> and making the empty function = the standard scaling
function. Question is function followed by range or = range followed by
function, the latter seems to be more logical to me, = e.g. <10-cmxiipt>
with Sebastians words. Comments?

> \item The whole business of the = $<map-type>$ seems a bit arcane. If

No question, I think there is such a remark in the = margin isn't it?
It was a nice straight forward implementation when = there have been
only fixed sizes.

> you want a familiar syntax, how about = having a default of 0, and any
> other values put in [] before the = string eg \verb|<6>[1]cmr10|?

Why not? It could be interpreted as the optional = argument to the
standard function for loading. It could then also be = used as optional
argument to any loading function defined by the user. = This needs more
thought but seems a possible way. What about more = than one argument?
comma separation? or what?

> \item But all this (and the PostScript code) is = going to cause
> difficulties because of the mismatch = between FM's `simple size' and
> the scaling factor.

May I remark that this is not my mismatch but rather a = compatibility
mismatch:-) But I'm happy to correct it next time. In = my eyes the best
solution would be to go for typographical sizes (Don = gave the list, or
at least the common part of it) but this means that = somebody must
provide the mf sources for the full set of fonts in = use. Please ...
don't tell me that I can find some of them there and = others here. What
is necessary is that somebody collects the stuff = generates the missing
ones (perhaps with sauters stuff) and presents the = full packages.
Also important is to write generation scripts (for = mfjob Dominik but
also for as many OS as possible). It is unfortunately = the fact that
the people in the TeX world loose knowledge more and = more because they
no longer fight against the OS to get the damn thing = running, but
rather use a running system. A second solution would = be to use 14.4 as
the size for a while until fonts in standard sizes = are available.

>   \verb|{14.4}|. Frank noted the = problem in the latter case
>   of the strings getting bigger, but = more important is the fact that
>   the numbers then become unamenable = to \TeX\ arithmetic, of the type
>   used in the function above.

That's not true, only cumbersome. You could use \ifdim = instead of
\ifnum that works fine.

> \item Choosing a `nearby size' --- can someone = suggest a suitable
> occasion for doing this? I don't see = the point at all.

A said some words in another message, beside making = beautiful pieces
of art one might to get information processed and in = this case it
might be acceptable to use a nearby size if the real = size is not
available on a particular installation.

Frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.92740AD4--