![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/49e63acb01f2ca80efce7eed08310ce8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Adam Lindsay wrote:
[changed to dev-context] Hans Hagen said this at Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:07:44 +0100:
lucida is a special case -)
because i used lucida a lot, those definitions ended up in the core, but when i bought more and more fonts, i finally decided to move the lucida defs to the type-buy.tex typescript because that;s where they belong
you can add the line:
\usetypescriptfile[type-buy]
to the cont-sys.tex file, but best is (because it's a document property) to say in you document (or style):
\usetypescriptfile[type-buy] % loads commercial font definitions \usetypescript[lucida][texnansi] % defines a lucida typeface \setupbodyfont[lucida,12pt] % enables the typeface defined as 'lucida'
That reminds me, Hans. The PCTeX edition of Lucida are floating around. I've done some preliminary typescripts, and they seem to fit in well. I need to track down some issues with obscure math characters (making them match CM math), figuring out if the discrepancy is in the current math- lbr definitions, or in changes with the new fonts.
Other than that, what should the definitions be called? \starttypescript[lucidanew]? doing an override in type-dis?
is this the b&h lucida? we can go for lucida-nova (as with optima-nova and palatino-nova -) Hans