texmacs-dev
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: tx fonts [Re: [Texmacs-dev] txexa font]

 From: Joris van der Hoeven Subject: Re: tx fonts [Re: [Texmacs-dev] txexa font] Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 20:32:22 +0200 (CEST)

> On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 09:51, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> > > Well, there is a definition of over/underbrace in LaTeX preceded by a
> > > comment saying something to the effect of "use txexa#32 instead of a
> > > \hbox".  Also, it seems to work fine in LaTeX, that is,
> > >
> > > \braceld\bracext...\bracext\braceru\bracelu\bracext...\bracext\bracerd
> > >
> > > lines up perfectly.
> >
> > Also when using dpi=2400?
>
> I don't know.  For the above LaTeX code I just do
>
> pdflatex filename.tex
>
> and zoom in to 1600%, and it still looks OK.
>
> How do I check (where do I specify) dpi=2400 ?

I can't tell you ; I never really used pdflatex :^)))

> > > It looks like txexa#32 was /designed/ to work with cmex#122-125.
> >
> > This is strange; one would rather expect txexa#32 to be designed
> > for working with txex#122-125, which look slightly different as
> > cmex#122-125...
>
> I suppose so.  Maybe it works with both.  However, in LaTeX, AFAICT,
> cmex#122-125 are used for the extremities, and txexa#32 (or a deprecated
> \hbox) are used for the extension.
>
> Can you import txex#122-125 into TeXmacs ?  We can try the horizontal
> brace extremities from both fonts then and see which ones look better.
> Too bad there's no "cmexa" font with a horizontal brace extension.

Yes, I can do that, but I want to make sure that this is
the right solution; it seems really very hacky...