[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Again about root
From: |
Giovanni Zezza |
Subject: |
Again about root |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:21:57 +0100 |
I realize this isn't a frequently used symbol, neither one intended for a
very general task (like "over" or so); you have to have it, though, and you
have to have it right, so I hope this reports of mine may be useful to
improve the Eq package.
I've done my tests using Aladdin Ghostview (and Ghostscript) for Windows
(respectively 2.70 and 5.50 version); some of the inaccuracies I report may
then arise from some inconsistencies between metric's font files coming
with Lout and fonts actually used by Ghostscript. I think this unlikely,
though.
Eq seems to work at least questionably with index that have descendants:
@Eq {j root a}
again, the index symbol is too near to the root[1].
This may seem a little pedantic:
@Eq { something root a }
you may think this will never occur; anyway, it's better to have a
reasonable way to handle it. TeX does a better job by *right* justifying
the index to the left of the root symbol.
I tried to achieve this in Lout, but wasn't able to do other than this
monstruosity[1]:
def myroot
precedence 56
left x
right y
{
1w @HShift {"" sup x } &0co {0.4f @HShift sqrt y}
}
It works, in a way, but I hope there is a better way to do the job.
This IS definitely pedantic: the intersection between the straight line of
the root and the "radical" character isn't correctly drawn; this is a well
known PostScript behavior, that requires some caution to be solved
(possibly a redrawing of "radical").
Ciao.
[1] Trying to fix this problems I couldn't help to ask me some questions:
why can't I use any arithmetics in lengths? (something like
{x &{1r - 1f}o y} could possibly solve anything) Why aren't here variables
(where to store objects lengths and so on), logical operators and all the
other stuffs usually present in every language (even a functional one (like
Lisp), even a logical one (like Progol) and other far more esoteric
languages)?
No doubt, it has to be a "Lout's way" to do all is needed, and all these
questions arise from my inexperience, but up to now I'm not able to
understand. Lout is no doubt a very better designed language than TeX or
LaTeX (a not so difficult goal), but for now I feel me like I can only
choice to get the right thing the wrong way (LaTeX) or the wrong thing the
right way (Lout). A not very comfortable feeling; so correct me, please.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Again about root,
Giovanni Zezza <=