[XeTeX] "xeuler" package redundant?

[Will Robertson]

Two replies in one. How efficient!

-------------------
Bruno Voisin wrote:
> Looks okay to me (I'm one of those persons who never used Euler), 
> except bold isn't bold, but I'm not sure the corresponding bold fonts 
> do exist. I'm mailing the PDF output off-list separately to Will.

Perfect, thanks!
The bold symbols are only very slightly different to the normal ones, 
you need to look real close to see the difference. Funny that.

-------------------
Jonathan Kew wrote:
(Wow, you've the same number of letters in your name as Bruno!)

> On 7 Mar 2005, at 12:43 pm, Will Robertson wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, JK could reply and say "yes, xeuler is no longer 
>> required" without having to typeset anything :) :)
>
> I could indeed say that... but as I've forgotten the details of the 
> original issue, I don't recommend that you trust my claims! :)
>
> I've a feeling that it was something about the font encoding, which 
> means there's a good chance that the 0.9 update will have fixed 
> things.

Yeah, basically all *I* knew of the situation was that XeTeX was 
"flaky" with non-standard tfm-based fonts. All the fix required was a 
ReEncode command in a .map file referring to an .enc file specifying 
how the font was laid out.

Great, I'll remove xeuler from public eyes, since it's worse than 
useless now. If anyone needs it (I wouldn't have the foggiest why - 
just change xeuler back to euler in your \usepackage and everything 
will work great for old documents) you know where to find me.

Well, I assume you know where *virtually* to find me. If you knew 
physically where I was I might be a little worried :)

Cheers,
Will