# Re: Misplaced code

• To: fontinst@cogs.susx.ac.uk
• Subject: Re: Misplaced code
• From: Lars Hellström <Lars.Hellstrom@math.umu.se>
• Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:06:55 +0100 (MET)

"Hilmar Schlegel" <schlegel@vossnet.de> wrote:
[snip]
>i) it is not plausible that the kerning of word-boundaries of a non-Tex
>font applies to the kerning of the visiblespace

Note that the current latin.mtx does make visiblespace kern like space.

I was simply pointing out one possible reason that the code in question
existed in the first place, I did not take a side on whether this reason
was good or not.

[snip]
>The following from t1.etx is quite clumsy due to the explicit code
>position but works at least:
>
>\ifisglyph{compwordmark}\then
>%   \setint{boundarychar}{\int{visiblespace}}
>   \setint{boundarychar}{23} % \int{compwordmark}} %124
>\fi
>
Excuse me, but isn't compwordmark meant to be used in words, to split up
possible ligatures in composite words like shelfful''? I do not know if
anyone actually uses it this way, but I am pretty sure that is how it is
intended to be used.

Lars Hellström