[XeTeX] unicode-math package and \UnicodeMathSymbol command

[Ed Morehouse]

Ross Moore <ross at ...> writes:

> 
> 
> On 22/06/2009, at 8:43 AM, Ed Morehouse wrote:
> 
...

thanks, ross and joel, for your replies.

i realize now that the example i posted was poorly chosen.  it introduces some
issues that i'm not worried about at the moment.  indeed, it is not even a
"minimal example" of anything, since all it shows is that something i hoped
would work, in fact, doesn't.

my original question is just whether someone knows of a way to (re)declare
unicode math symbols in the context of the unicode-math package without editing
the unicode-math package itself.

ross, i don't understand what you mean by:


> No. This cannot work.
> To declare any new symbols you have to bind \UnicodeMathSymbol first,
> as follows:
> 
> \makeatletter
>    \let\UnicodeMathSymbol\um <at> mathsymbol <at> noparse
>    \UnicodeMathSymbol{"0003A}{\colon}{\mathrel}{colon}% default: 
> \mathpunct
>    \UnicodeMathSymbol{"0007C}{\vert}{\mathrel}{vertical bar}%  
> default: \mathord
> \makeatother

isn't \UnicodeMathSymbol already bound (bound = defined ?) in unicode-math.sty?
 i'm just trying to use the command defined there, not define it myself.  once i
\usepackage{unicode-math}, \UnicodeMathSymbol seems to be in scope since i am
able to call it without error, but also without the desired effect.  am i
missing something here?  when i try as you suggest, xetex complains about
missing \begin{document} and several undefined control sequences.

> However, this doesn't work with symbols that have already been declared.

this is something i would like to understand.  why is it that when i \input a
file containing redeclarations into unicode-math.sty (immediately after where
unicode-math-add.tex is \input), it works as i would like, but when i try to
make the redeclarations in the preamble of a document it has no effect?

...

i understand that there are unicode and tex standards regarding the usage of
certain symbols, but that's not what i'm asking about.  if one accepts the
premises that not all math symbols have ordinary, operator, relation, etc.
variants, and that someone might want to use a math symbol in a role other than
the one specified by a standard, then my original question is still meaningful.

-ed morehouse