Here's what I did for my document: \(sr\z\([EMAIL PROTECTED]@
(where .EQ delim @@ .EN ) Perhaps eqn could do that as well? And I'm not saying that the glyph is ruined on large fonts: I'm saying that each character overlaps, like in the other guy's original PostScript output. I must've gotten confused by what he said. Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> For -Tdvi, I was not able to find a standalone DVI to PostScript >> converter, and the only to DVI to PDF converters required a >> non-standalone library called kpathsea. > > Well, kpathsea can be compiled stand-alone. However, this isn't > trivial since basically noone needs that. > >> I just want to have square root working correctly: it seems as if >> eqn is giving zero width to the radical sign (perhaps with \z\(sr or >> something else) and the upper bar (\z\(rn). > > I just can repeat: Both AT&T's and groff's eqn use the standard > PostScript glyph for the square root sign. It's not possible to get a > better appearance by scaling. > > A possible solution to this situation would be to extend groff eqn so > that it uses a larger set of mathematical glyphs which, among others, > contain better shapes for large radical signs and parentheses. The > `cmex10' font used in DVI mode exists in a PS version also (attached); > it might be a worthwile exercise to add this font to groff (using the > same groff glyph names as provided for `devdvi'). > > Any takers to experiment with? As soon as groff finds those glyphs it > uses them... > > > Werner > > > _______________________________________________ > bug-groff mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-groff > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/sqrt-troubles-with-eqn-tf4497348.html#a12826528 Sent from the Groff - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ bug-groff mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-groff
