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