[XeTeX] Problem with unicode-math and acronym packages

[Michael Lynch]

On 16/06/2010 00:49, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 02:38:51AM +0300, Khaled Hosny wrote:
>    
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:23:33AM +0100, Michael Lynch wrote:
>>      
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I've come across a conflict between the unicode-math and acronym packages.
>>>
>>> If I run xelatex on the test file I've attached, I get the expected
>>> results (i.e. the acronyms work correctly). This is seen in
>>> AcronymTest.pdf.
>>>
>>> However, if I uncomment the lines relating to unicode-math (i.e.
>>> \usepackage{…} and \setmathfont{…}) then I get the results of
>>> AcronymTest2.pdf, and the acronyms do not work correctly.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any ideas as to where the problem's coming from?
>>>        
>> Unicode-math defines a math symbol \ac, from unicode-math-table.tex:
>>
>> \UnicodeMathSymbol{"0223E}{\ac}{\mathbin}{most positive [inverted lazy s]}
>>
>> Something like \let\acronym\ac before loading unicode-math, and then
>> using \acronym would solve the problem for now.
>>      
> You also need to load acronym package before unicode-math, of course.
>
>    
Hi,

Thanks for the help. Is the unicode-math definition “pliable”? I.e., is 
\ac in unicode-math purely an internal definition, that could be renamed 
without problems, or is it a reference to something that is defined 
elsewhere. (I think it's the former but aren't sure. ) If that's the 
case, as unicode-math is fairly new and the acronym package is more 
established, would it be possible to rename the unicode-math definition 
to something subtly different? Given the number of definitions in 
unicode-math-table.tex, it wouldn't be surprising if there are other 
such clashes, and it would be useful for people porting legacy documents 
to be able to make use of unicode-math without (possibly extensive) 
modifications of their existing work.

Regards,

Mike