# Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily

• To: rebecca@astrid.u-net.com
• Subject: Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily
• From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk>
• Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 13:46:54 +0100
• Cc: fontinst@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• References: <l03130305b18ff73776d2@[194.119.133.37]> <6720-Tue26May1998103412+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> <l03130301b1905e0e4f76@[194.119.133.41]>

Rebecca and Rowland writes:
> Ha ha very funny.  Done that.  Makes no sense to me at all.  If it did make
> any sense to me, I wouldn't be asking, would I?
it must make *some* sense....
>
> Goes via 8a what exactly?  afm, mtx, pl?  And what other files does it look
> for?
Ulrik explains this better than me. first afm, then mtx

> Very good.  I've looked at that macro and I can't work out what it does.  I
> can understand virtually none of the fontinst source code.  Can you explain?
ask again if Ulrik's note was unclear

> Under what circumstances exactly?  I've never seen it do the {ui}{it}
> substitution.
because shape ui is not requested by \latin_family. it only asks for

\def\latin_shapes{
\latin_shape{} {} {} {n}
\latin_shape{c}{c}{} {sc}
\latin_shape{o}{o}{} {sl}
\latin_shape{i}{i}{i}{it}
}

so he ui=it substitution is never activated.

you are screaming now, aren't you?

sebastian