[XeTeX] On an ugly hack to mathbf only in the local style.
Andrew Moschou
andmos at gmail.com
Tue Oct 30 23:56:45 CET 2012
This document:
http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20090929/921178b4/attachment-0001.tex
which I wrote three years ago has some code to handle optional _ and ^
suffixes. I probably don't have the time to adapt it to this situation, but
this means that it is theoretically possible.
BTW, I uploaded an updated version of this document (on stretchable big
operators) to my old website, which no longer exists (In the future, I
won't trust free webhosts). If anybody actually downloaded it, would you
please send it my way?
Thanks,
Andrew
On 31 October 2012 02:21, Michaël Cadilhac <michael at cadilhac.name> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Zdenek Wagner <zdenek.wagner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2012/10/30 Michaël Cadilhac <michael at cadilhac.name>:
> >> Hi there folks,
>
> > How about the following solution? I am writing it directly to the mail
> > without testing, I hope I won't make any error.
> >
> > \def\vec#1{\do at vec#1_\do at vec}
> > \def\do at vec#1_#2\do at vec{\ifcat$#2$\mathbf{#1}\else\vec at subscript
> #1_#2\vec at subscript\fi}
> > \def\vec at subscript#1_#2_\vec at subscript{\mathbf{#1}_{#2}}
>
> Zdeněk,
>
> Thanks for your input! However, I also have vectors such as \vec{x^i_j}
> (or
> \vec{x_j^i}), and your solution does not seem to have a simple extension to
> those cases. The original hack I had had the advantage that no syntactic
> manipulation had to be made on the argument, avoiding for sure those
> problems. If we have to do this syntactically, I'll think about it some
> more.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> M.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20121031/8046e0e9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the XeTeX
mailing list