[texhax] Adjusted gap text/display-math. Was: less gap
text/display math when almost empty
Alexandru Scorpan
ascorpan at math.ufl.edu
Mon Oct 4 05:00:26 CEST 2004
Thanks for all your replies.
Let me clarify a bit: I was actually referring to regular math
display, not necessarily to align* etc. True, something does happen.
But I guess my taste is a bit more extreme even than
\abovedisplayskip=0pt: I would favor a value of -.5\baselineskip,
bringing it up a bit.
Indeed, if you have <full-text-line1> / <short-text-line> /
<lil'-math-display> / <full-text-line2>, then the display sits
essentially between the two <full-text-line>'s, with a whole extra
\baselineskip gap on top. Thus, better to average with
-.5\baselineskip, to my taste.
I think I am bound to do these things by hand, especially as a really
nice output depends on a lot of factors, like percentage of fullness
for all lines involved, as well as tricky cases such as when you have a
math display like: <stuff> = <Matrix>, where <stuff> appears under the
end of <short-text-line>, but the <Matrix> sits under the previous
<full-text-line1>: it is nice then to lift it up, again. Indeed,
all-in-all I find myself using all sorts of fractions of \baselineskip
to get what I like...
I guess all this is simply some sort of wish list, maybe somebody
proficient in the finer points of TeX might enjoy doing something about
it... After all, people get excited (incl. me) about all sorts of
microtypographical finesse, like character protruding/marging kerning
and font expansion, while the math display remains, in my humble
opinion, somewhat rudimentary.
BTW: Is there a reasonably accessible mechanism through which I could
hook up into the bowels of TeX's decision between \abovedisplayskip /
\abovedisplayshortskip? A good way to compare superpositions / line
fullness, etc?
-- Alex
More information about the texhax
mailing list