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

Hans Hagen pragma at wxs.nl
Sun Mar 6 18:56:40 CET 2011

On 6-3-2011 6:03, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> 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).

no, we can keep them there as we want that compatibility (for plain etc)

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

ok, will do

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------