[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More missing glyphs...

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Frank Mittelbach wrote:


> it is probably true that some mathematicians put their hands on any
> symbol they could reach from within TeX to get more symbols available
> (i did use them in my diploma thesis myself :-) and perhaps there is
> even an established branch (although i would like to know some more
> details before believing the latter) but i would claim it is
> sufficiently rare to allow for sacrifying encoding compatibility of
> the core in that case.  it is still no problem for me to rerun my
> thesis with the new encoding by loading those symbols from either an
> extra font.
> at least that was the common opinion back then.

Well, I have seen sharp and flat being used in publications about
modules, for the classes of flat and pure-injective modules (guess which 
glyph denotes which class !). These concepts are `dual' in a certain
sense. I guess that there are other dual concepts for which flat
and sharp are used. 

To Alan Jeffrey: 

Speaking about flat and sharp, I just noticed that the sharp and natural
glyphs are in the wrong order in the file OMS.etx which is part of the
fontinst package.   

Regards, Matthias