[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rethinking @def*
From: |
Gavin Smith |
Subject: |
Re: rethinking @def* |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:24:44 +0100 |
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:03:17AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With the changes to TeX output, assuming it is more or less final, I
> checked the differences between LaTeX and TeX, the differences are
> mainly attributable to the combinations or not of fonts (combination in
> LaTeX, not in TeX). In many cases, we do not really care, we simply
> need to document that @r{@___{}} should be used.
>
> There are two cases that are of interest, though, as they are likely to
> be important in practice:
>
> @var in @deftype* is slanted typewriter in LaTeX but slanted roman in
> TeX.
>
> @code (and @t) in @defn* is slanted typewriter in LaTeX but upright typewriter
> in TeX.
>
> What you we do for those two cases? Try to change one or the other
> formatting? Document that the formatting can be different?
I think it would make sense to change LaTeX output to be like TeX output
for these two points. We could change @var from \textsl{...} to something
like \textrm{\textsl{...}} or {\sl ...}.
It's possible that there could be some inconsistency between the
formatting of @var and @def* between output formats, as long as
there is consistency within each format.
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/08/02
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/08/09
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/08/09
- Re: rethinking @def*, Patrice Dumas, 2022/08/09
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/08/10
- Re: rethinking @def*, Patrice Dumas, 2022/08/10
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/08/10
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/08/10
- Re: rethinking @def*, Patrice Dumas, 2022/08/10
- Re: rethinking @def*, Gavin Smith, 2022/08/14