[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk>*Subject*: Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily*From*: Rebecca and Rowland <rebecca@astrid.u-net.com>*Date*: Sat, 30 May 1998 03:28:58 +0100*Cc*: fontinst@cogs.susx.ac.uk*In-Reply-To*: <8743-Fri29May1998101324+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk>*References*: <l03130304b193d1ba65b8@[194.119.133.41]><l03130301b191fda5938e@[194.119.133.49]><l03130302b190604cd64b@[194.119.133.41]><l03130305b18ff73776d2@[194.119.133.37]><199805260956.LAA18591@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de><2054-Tue26May1998140230+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk><2186-Thu28May1998093126+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk><l03130304b193d1ba65b8@[194.119.133.41]>

>Rebecca and Rowland writes: > > On the other hand, it took me 1/2 hour to turn what you emailed into > > something I could understand (quite a lot of that was working out a form of > > notation that I could understand and would fit on a single sheet of A4 - it > > took a few tries). Do you see what I mean about several orders of > > magnitude harder for me? I'm not thick, but I don't think like the average > > computer programmer. >Possibly you need to tell us what notation you desire. Since I am not >a computer programmer [1], I am not sure what they do either. Hmm... You look like one to me. Anyway, the thing about the notation that made sense to me in that case is that it's not easy to generate in plain text. You could do it in LaTeX easily enough, but it'd be a right pain. I don't say that there's anything wrong with the notation you used: it was unambiguous and easy to interpret bit-by-bit. The problem was that I couldn't see the whole of it in one go, which is why I used some curious symbols and big brackets on a bit of paper. It's not a notation that's particularly good for anything except my own understanding of that particular problem: your notation was fine, but a bit tricky for me to understand in that case. > > Yes. I know what an integer is, but the LGC documentation says `int > > expr', *not* `int'. If the documentation had said `integer', I would know > > what sort of thing was needed. It doesn't: it says integer expression with >cos i stole that from Alan :-} A greater artist, then: stealing not borrowing. > > >ligfull installation means that the ligature information in the AFM > > >file is copied to the output metric > > > > Right. How is it possible to do any other sort of installation, and why > > would you want to? >i think Alan covered that? Yes: very well indeed. > > S'all right, I don't expect miracles ;-) >thats not my observation... Have you been talking to my psychologist? Rowland.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily** - Next by Date:
**Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily** - Next by thread:
**Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily** - Index(es):