Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> What about \neq and \[l]dots? How can I get those working in "unicode
> math input"?
In general, it is better not to do that, (because it is slower
and needs lots of control sequences), but if the font does not contain
what you need, you have no choice, of course.
> \definemathcharacter [≠] {\neq}
> is probably not adapted to such definitions.
You are right, it is not. But the currently ignored command
\definemathcharacter [≠] [\neq]
could be made to work easily enough. Here is an example of such
an approach (the implementation is very ugly, I am just trying to
demonstrate:
\let\mydodefinemathcharacter\dodefinemathcharacter
\def\dodefinemathcharacter[#1][#2][#3][#4][#5][#6]%
{\iffourthargument
\mydodefinemathcharacter[#1][#2][#3][#4][#5][#6]%
\else
\begingroup
\catcode`#1=\active
\uccode`~=`#1
\uppercase{\gdef~{#2}}%
\endgroup
\mathcode`#1="8000
\fi}
Best wishes, Taco
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : [email protected] / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
