[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The syntax of \latinfamily
- To: Rebecca and Rowland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: The syntax of \latinfamily
- From: Lars Hellström <Lars.Hellstrom@math.umu.se>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:54:41 +0100 (MET)
- Cc: fontinst list <email@example.com>
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> From the discussions in tex-fonts the last six months, I
>>have learnt that the main source of a euro symbol (which people are likely
>>to want) is the Adobe eurofonts, which are not connected to specific font
>>families, but which still exist in a few different designs, so that one
>>cannot simply use one eurofont with all font families (and expect the euro
>>symbol to look right).
>Erm... actually, you can (sort of); just to prove I'm not only a whinging
>Pom, you might like to look at this package on CTAN:
I yield to your superior knowledge of what might or might not be
aestetically acceptable in this matter. My intention was only to give an
example of a case where a user would want to supply \latinfamily with more
information than what is currently possible.
Actually, this is only a special case of a more general situation: The user
specifies that glyphs (almost always symbols) that could not found in any
of the fonts in the font family should be taken from font #1, if they can
be found there. #1 could for example be psyr8r.