[NTG-context] $n\choose k$-issue with OpenType math fonts

Aditya Mahajan adityam at umich.edu
Sun Mar 6 18:03:04 CET 2011


On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Hans Hagen wrote:

> On 6-3-2011 1:25, Andreas Harder wrote:
>> 
>> Am 04.03.2011 um 15:28 schrieb Hans Hagen:
>> 
>>> On 4-3-2011 2:09, Andreas Harder wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm (re)tying to draw some attention to the $n\choose k$-issue with 
>>>> OpenType math fonts.
>>>> 
>>>> I've made some test files:
>>>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/151837/OpenType-Math.7z
>>>> 
>>>> The best output is generated by LuaLaTeX (at least for Asana and 
>>>> Cambria). Would it be possible to correct the ConTeXt output as well?
>>> 
>>> It depends what correction boils down to. Normally it's the opentype font 
>>> parameters that control the threshold to the next step in a larger 
>>> delimiter
>> 
>> This subject is also discussed on the LuaLaTeX mailing list.
>> http://tug.org/pipermail/lualatex-dev/2011-March/thread.html#1118
>
> hm, i actually decided to limit the number of mailing lists to follow so best 
> provide a summary of conclusions instead of a link -)
>
> anyhow, I wonder if we really need to keep supporting this
>
>  x \operator y
>
> kind of syntax (at least that's what crossed my mind when i saw that this 
> atopwithdelims primitive was used in your example) .. maybe we should simply 
> define a few extra commands and relax these primitives

At the macro package level, I agree with this. The \over, \choose, \atop 
etc macros can be made \undefined; We already have a high level interface 
for them.

Do you also want to remove them from the engine? That will simplify the 
\mathstyle macros, but then luatex will not be backward compatible with 
tex. (I don't care about that, but others would).

> aditya: shouldn't we merge the m-newmath code into the core?

Definitely.

Aditya


More information about the ntg-context mailing list