PCTeX Talk
Discussions on TeX, LaTeX, fonts, and typesetting

Author Message
Michael Spivak

Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 52

 Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:15 am    Post subject: new symbols with macros Back when we were soliciting new characters for MTProII, some one asked for \barint, saying that his constructed character didn't work well with limits. Since I was adding lots of characters at the time, I didn't think about this much, and just added \barint, followed later by \slashint. Some one has now asked for versions of \barint that have the bar near the top or the bottom, for the Riemann upper integral and Riemann lower integral, which led me to reconsider. \barint could be defined as follows: \def\barint{\kern4pt \raise3.4pt\hbox{\vrule height.8pt width5pt}% \kern-9pt % -(4pt + 5pt) \int} One's first inclination is first set the \int sign, and then add the bar, but this doesn't give TeX any information about where limits and sub and superscripts go. The definition above first positions the bar in the right place, then backs up to the initial point, and then prints the \int, so that TeX will now know where things should go. [The \kern4pt, \raise3.4pt, and the dimensions of the \vrule were just obtained by trial and error.] Of course, this definition is really only for display style; if one needed it for both text and display style, one would need to use a \mathchoice (or a \mathpallete if you're up for it). Similarly, one might use \def\Ruint{\kern4.8pt \raise9pt\hbox{\vrule height.7pt width5pt}\kern-9.8pt\int} \def\Rlint{\kern2.6pt \lower4pt\hbox{\vrule height.7pt width5pt}\kern-7.6pt\int}
Michael Spivak

Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 52

 Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:30 am    Post subject: Actually, it turned out that what was wanted was to have the rules above and below the integral signs, not near the top and bottoms. One might use \def\Rlint{\kern1pt\lower10.3pt \hbox{\vrule height.7pt width4pt}\kern-5pt\int} \def\Ruint{\kern7pt\raise14.8pt \hbox{\vrule height.8pt width4pt}\kern-11pt\int} However, the real concern was apparently that such definitions gave results that look different depending on whether one uses latex-dvitopdf, latex-dvi-ps-pstopdf, pdflatex, etc. I presume that this is because these use different methods of determining just which pixels to use for rules, and that differences would only show up on the screen, not at high resolution. Any one know anything about this?
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 All times are GMT - 7 Hours Page 1 of 1

 Jump to: Select a forum Support----------------PCTeX 6PCTeX v6 Beta Fonts----------------MathTime Pro II New SymbolsMathTime Pro IILucida FontsMathTime Pro II BetaMathTime Pro TUG----------------PracTeX Production
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum