From: Stephan Stiller <stephan.stiller_at_gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:04:21 -0700

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:04:21 -0700

1. Michael Everson wrote:

*> Still it might be interesting to see the symbols-a4.pdf.
*

I have always wanted to see an associative array for "The Comprehensive

LaTeX Symbol List" mapping symbols to sets of use cases, considering

only "standardized" usage and perhaps only the literature that would be

considered part of the curricula all grad students in some field would

encounter. (Like, all the literature covering core math areas. I know,

this will be fuzzy around the edges.)

Because I don't think the Simpsons characters belong into Unicode. And

so many of the symbols from the packages covered by this symbol list

seem to have been generated on a whim.

It might even be possible for someone to scour tex-files on the internet

to get some real usage statistics.

2. Hans Aberg wrote:

*> TeX does not parse the formulas.
*

"TeX associates classes with subformulas as well as with individual

characters." (see Ch. 17 of "The TeXbook") There are 8 such classes, and

if TeX parses an expression incorrectly, one can change them on an

ad-hoc basis. Sadly such things aren't taught well (like a lot about

TeX/LaTeX that is needed for good typography), and that's why people

mostly don't know about this and the underlying mechanics and why

getting such things is a pain in practice, as one needs to look all over

the place for answers.

Stephan

Received on Thu Jul 12 2012 - 18:05:58 CDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0
: Thu Jul 12 2012 - 18:05:58 CDT
*