@JosephWright Since I was already chosen last year, I think it is more correct to give my place to Romano, here: tex.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7543/…, it it is possible. Thank you!
As a community we have institutional membership of TUG paid for by StackOverflow. (Thanks to StackOverflow for this support and to Stefan Kottwitz for the initial idea!) The membership entitles us to nominate eight people to benefit directly from this, receiving copies of TUGBoat and so on. As in...
@cfr: Regarding Heiko's comments in tex.stackexchange.com/questions/414596/…, I wanted to make a joke about the existence of a potentially infinite number of epsilons in the OP's code, as in formal language theory epsilon denotes the empty string, but I think it's too nerd. :)
Looking the picture below it is possible to observe the same lenght of the the size of two signs of the integral.
For the first integral (red box), the size is correct. But for the second integral (violet box) the size is very small for the integrand. I have adjusted myself the lenght of the ...
@egreg When you have some free time, could you give a view to my question? Now I have my students on break and I'm not home. With Papeeria mt2pro it is not available. Thank you so much and lots of greetings. Good carnival.
What is the luatex equivalent of \mathcode‘\,="8000? I even tried \Umathcodenum‘\,=\the\Umathcodenum‘\', and it doesn't seem to work. (I cheated a little here to deal with markdown syntax; the backticks aren't really backticks.)
@HaraldHanche-Olsen A single backquote is backquote backslash backquote backquote; for embedding one in code, use double backquotes around the code \mathcode`,="8000
@egreg Well, now it works. All traces of my failed attempts are gone, of course, so I have no idea where I screwed up.
I found the related documentation in luatex.pdf incredibly lacking, until I noticed something about XeTeX compatibility and looked it up in the XeTeX manual. Oh well.
@egreg I cut down on the grey level variability in the version on github in comparison with the original tex.sx answer, it's probably more realistic but makes it less obviously silly and variable. I suppose I should add some configuration options to tweak those things
@egreg I started to use the token library scanners but then thought I couldn't really do a lot sensible with the values, so I gave up, I suppose I should check. At least the width ought to be usable.
@egreg OK I see the height feature, maybe there'll be a later release without that...
:42793747 one more comment from you and I'll give @eg9 write access to that git repo:-)
@UlrikeFischer I guess I'll need to provide two paths: one for 'well-behaved' lists and one for 'naughty' ones
@DavidCarlisle I think I've made it clear in the older issue that in a sense that entire business worries me: I really don't want to give that impression, hence being wary of changes
Looking the picture below it is possible to observe the same lenght of the the size of two signs of the integral.
For the first integral (red box), the size is correct. But for the second integral (violet box) the size is very small for the integrand. I have adjusted myself the lenght of the ...
