[texhax] [lltx] issue with unicode-math, spanish and LuaLaTeX
st_philipp at yahoo.de
Tue Jul 12 16:57:37 CEST 2011
Am 12.07.2011 16:39, schrieb Taco Hoekwater:
> On 07/12/2011 04:33 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
>> On 07/12/2011 04:22 PM, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
>>> With xetex I can at least use
>>> but none of the various combination of \Umathchardef + \Umathcode
>>> etc seems to work in luatex.
>> NYI, see:
> Actually, that does not mean I think it is a good idea. The
> conceptual problem is that \XeTeXmathcodenum (and therefore
> also \Umathcodenum) can return a signed int to represent an
> unsigned value, with is pretty horrible.
Yes, and the bit-packed structure of the mathcodenum isn't quite elegant
either. The Lua table representation is fine, but unfortunately there is
no way to represent that in TeX.
> Why is it so important to be able to do a mathcharnumdef
> (instead of a macro definition or straight \Umathchardef?)
Because of the pattern that Ulrike mentioned:
\Umathcodenum `a = \Umathcodenum `b
\Umathcharnumdef \foo = \Umathcodenum `b
The second pattern is used to save a math code and restore it later. You
could save the math code in an integer register or macro, but then you
couldn't use that as a mathematical character shorthand.
I don't know what reasons Knuth had to introduce special syntax for
\chardefs/\mathchardefs, but I think most TeX users expect this syntax
to be present.
More information about the texhax