On 6/15/2024 10:59 AM, ralph.2718@email-postfach.info wrote:
Hi,
thank you all for your replies so far. I guess I’ll have to live with that for now (of course this isn’t really a problem, but a bit unpleasant to look at when you’re used to the straight lines in LaTeX). Just wanted to add that I can see this artifacts quite clearly on a 13 inch 1080p screen in the PDF viewer (depends on zoom level, on some zoom levels I see nothing) and not only when enlarging a screenshot. After all, it’s visible in my attached screenshots even if displayed in their original resolution. (Naming of my screenshots wasn’t very clear, zoomed.png is zoomed-in in the pdf viewer, not a zoomed-in screenshot.)
The "left radical + rule" isn't perfect either, because it depends on overlap. Depending on the font you can see issues at the connection (actually these might be obscured by aliasing at low res). You can try that outside lmtx with different fonts.
Also, because rules are often rendered differently from glyphs (and rules can use either a line or rectangle fill) it's always been an issue (which is also why engines have some heuristics for choosing one or the other method).
And, as mentioned, vertical extenders also use the same etechnology as we now use for radicals, it's just that there was never a concept like that in engines for radicals. Arrows sit in the same category and also use the same glyphs so there one can observe the same. Actually, even in traditional tex arrows are made from minusus and an arrowhead overlapping piecewise.
Maybe viewers will catch up.
Hans
----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------