Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 um 09:37:54, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller <sp...@lyx.org> > Am Dienstag, den 21.02.2017, 10:35 -0500 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > If you think your patch is a step forward, and these tests were just > > passing by chance before, then in my opinion the correct way to > > proceed > > is to apply your patch and invert these two tests. > > OK. Note that the two tests need not to be inverted. Since it is just a > "missing glyph" problem, we can include them in the chain that ignores > missing glyphs errors.
That would have been my suggestion too. > > Can you perhaps add > > some information on why you these two tests are expected to have > > problems with xunicode? We can add this information where we invert > > the > > tests. By adding comments in invertedTests file, we can easily see > > why > > certain tests are inverted. > > They do not have problems with xunicode, but without. The reason is > that the asterisk glyph is not included in the arabic font > (Scheherazade), but apparently, xunicode defines an extra asterisk > glyph (for a different purpose) that is being used here. Clearly the > problem should be fixed somewhere else. A workaround is to redefine the > thanks command and to use \ast instead of the plain *: > > \renewcommand*{\@fnsymbol}[1]{\ensuremath{\ifcase#1\or \ast\or > \dagger\or \ddagger\or\mathsection\or \mathparagraph\or \|\or > \ast\ast\or \dagger\dagger\or \ddagger\ddagger \else\@ctrerr\fi}} Now I am confused. What is your proposal? a.) Add these tests to the chain of "missing glyph" or b.) Add code to the preamble of the two files ? > Jürgen > > > > > Scott Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.