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

*To*: Metafont distribution list <metafont@ens.fr>*Subject*: Is EULER math?; was: Re: MF ==> (PS type1*From*: "Daniel H. Luecking" <luecking@comp.uark.edu>*Date*: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 14:03:23 -0600 (CST)*cc*: tex-fonts@math.utah.edu*Flags*: 000000000000*In-Reply-To*: <199703111835.TAA11847@micro.cs.auc.dk>*Reply-To*: "Daniel H. Luecking" <luecking@comp.uark.edu>

Pardon me for jumping in here late. I have been following this exchange between B.K.P.Horn and F.Jensen and it seems as if there might be some misunderstandings going on. Maybe I can help. I actually prepared a math article using Concrete + Euler (+ CM). I followed closely (I hope exactly!) the arrangement of fonts laid out in gkpmac.tex, the macro package allegedly used for Concrete Mathematics. The font set CC and EU were intended to go together, with the Concrete fonts used for text, the Euler for math. Essentially: CCR replaces CMR (and similarly for other text fonts) EUR replaces CMMI (but it lacks a 17 glyphs, mostly arrows and accents) EUS replaces a small part of CMSY (37 glyphs: \cal A...Z, plus 11 more) EUEX replaces a small part of CMEX (50 glyphs including sums, (co)products, integrals, some arrows and all the various bits of braces) For a full featured math setup, the other extensible symbols (parentheses, brackets, etc.) are drawn from CMEX. And virtually all the specialized relations and binary operations are drawn from CMSY. I understood B.K.P. Horn to say that the Euler family was not mainly a math family except for EUEX. This is partly (maybe mostly) correct. I do not think he meant to say anything about their availability in Type 1 format. If the book Concrete Mathematics (as printed) followed the macros in gkpmac.tex, then it would certainly have needed CMEX at least (or a replacement) and might possibly have needed CMSY. Indeed, I have read comments from Knuth that EUEX was needed only for the few cases where the CM symbols did not blend well with the EU family. This suggests that they were used or at least intended to be used. To me, it makes equally good sense to regard EU as extending CM or to regard CM as extending EU, with respect to the math fonts. Dan Luecking -------->-------->-------->-------->-------->--------v Mathematical Sciences <---+ luecking@comp.uark.edu | Univ. of Arkansas <---| http://comp.uark.edu/~luecking/ | Fayetteville, AR 72101 <---+--<--------<--------<--------<--------<

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Is EULER math?; was: Re: MF ==> (PS type1***From:*Frank Jensen <fj@cs.auc.dk>

**References**:**Re: MF ==> (PS type1)***From:*Frank Jensen <fj@cs.auc.dk>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: MF ==> (PS type1)** - Next by Date:
**Re: BlueSky fonts and subfont (and FixFont)** - Prev by thread:
**Re: MF ==> (PS type1)** - Next by thread:
**Re: Is EULER math?; was: Re: MF ==> (PS type1** - Index(es):