[NTG-context] Monospace fallback kerning

Hans Γ…berg haberg-1 at telia.com
Wed Dec 19 20:43:38 CET 2018


> On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:25, Hans Hagen <j.hagen at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
>>> \startformula
>>>  \unstackscripts 𝑷₂₀(0), βˆ€Β²π‘₯⁰⁺²₂₀: 𝑷₂₀(π‘₯⁰⁺²₂₀) β‡’ 𝑷₂₀(s(π‘₯⁰⁺²₂₀)) ⊒ βˆ€ΒΉπ‘¦β°βΊΒΉβ‚‚β‚€ 𝑷₂₀(𝑦⁰⁺¹₂₀)
>>> \stopformula
>> That might be useful for those depending on it, and presumably there is a \stackscripts, too. Just comes to my mind:
>> Though probably non-standard in typesetting, one might make a slight typographic difference between π‘₯Β²β‚€ and π‘₯β‚€Β² by letting the sub- or superscripts that come later partially, but not fully, to the position of the one that comes before. For example, π‘₯β‚€Β² might mean the square of π‘₯β‚€, and π‘₯Β²β‚€ the component 0 of π‘₯Β², not necessarily the same. Traditionally, such things are left for the reader to interpret.
> 
> ok, we can apply selectively ... {\unstackscripts ... {\stackscripts ...} ... } ... maybe we need short commands that take an argument, like
> \unstack{............} but that might clash ... just give it some thought ...

Your suggestion might be great for simplifying tensor component notation, as one then can omit separators like {} or |. But then what would happen, even perhaps not that common, if one would need to have it stacked somewhere else in the formula. So in my mind, this would be just top level \unstackscripts … \stackscripts … \unstackscripts.

The other idea would be something like \partialstackscripts, but actual demand is unclear. :-)




More information about the ntg-context mailing list