Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9604606C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5922.9201090203@hilliard.ecs.soton.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9604606C" Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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]) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Sebastian is right, as usual Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 13:34:40 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Sebastian Rahtz" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 535 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9604606C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable CA_ROWLEY@uk.ac.ou.acsvax writes: > someone who knows what .TFM files are available on the system and who > should ensure that it never tries to load a "nonexistent external > font". Maybe this philosophy should change? I have to admit that its inconsistent. If TeX tries to load a text file that does not exist, you the macro writer can trap this and take appropriate action. I merely wanted to do the same thing for fonts. The suggestion about \batchmode .... nullfont is actually not too bad, but a) can someone tell me if this uses unreclaimable space in TeX memory? b) do i know what mode i was in before, so i can restore it? c) can i suppress error messages from the load? > > Therefore, his function "cm" is an abuse of the current NFSS. gee thanks. and I though the nfss was a way to interface LaTeX to my fonts collection. how can anything which does that be an abuse? > than 11, this function can allow Tex to work with font-metrics (eg > cmr17 at 22pt) for fonts which will not be printable on that *anything* is available is you use dynamic .pk creation. the question of whether or not a .pk file is available is a red herring. we are talking TFM files, aren't we? > > Should (and can) the NFSS philosophy change to allow generic, = rather than > system-specific, fontdef files? > well this is a silly question. anyone can, and should, delete instances of cminch*.* from their systems (for example), so that would mean their fontdefl no longer reflected their system. All the nfss says is that *if* you ask for cmr/mn/it/56 *then* this is how to get it. If you haven't got the font, don't ask for it! I could open up Word now and ask for font `Rowley' in the little box, and duly create a document, but that doesnt mean it would print. Its my fault for asking for the font, not the system's sebastian ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9604606C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Sebastian is right, as usual

CA_ROWLEY@uk.ac.ou.acsvax writes:
 > someone who knows what .TFM files are = available on the system and who
 > should ensure that it never tries to load = a "nonexistent external
 > font".  Maybe this philosophy = should change?  I have to admit that
its inconsistent. If TeX tries to load a text file = that does not
exist,  you the macro writer can trap this and = take appropriate
action. I merely wanted to do the same thing for = fonts. The suggestion
about \batchmode .... nullfont is actually not too = bad, but
 a) can someone tell me if this uses = unreclaimable space in TeX
    memory?
 b) do i know what mode i was in before, so i = can restore it?
 c) can i suppress error messages from the = load?
 >
 > Therefore, his function "cm" is = an abuse of the current NFSS.
gee thanks. and I though the nfss was a way to = interface LaTeX to my
fonts collection. how can anything which does that be = an abuse?

 > than 11, this function can allow Tex to = work with font-metrics (eg
 > cmr17 at 22pt) for fonts which will not be = printable on that
*anything* is available is you use dynamic .pk = creation. the question
of whether or not a .pk file is available is a red = herring. we are
talking TFM files, aren't we?

 >
 >   Should (and can) the NFSS = philosophy change to allow generic, rather than
 >    system-specific, fontdef = files?
 >
well this is a silly question. anyone can, and = should, delete
instances of cminch*.* from their systems (for = example), so that would
mean their fontdefl no longer reflected their system. = All the nfss
says is that *if* you ask for cmr/mn/it/56 *then* = this is how to get
it. If you haven't got the font, don't ask for it! I = could open up
Word now and ask for font `Rowley' in the little box, = and duly create
a document, but that doesnt mean it would print. Its = my fault for
asking for the font, not the system's

sebastian

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9604606C--