Re: [XeTeX] are the intercharclasses mentioned in interchar.pdf correct?

On 27 March 2017 at 17:18, Mike "Pomax" Kamermans wrote: > Are the predefined classes from > http://mirror.utexas.edu/ctan/macros/xetex/latex/interchar/interchar.pdf > still correct? are classes 255 (for boundary) and 256 (for unused) still the > right ones, are those

[XeTeX] are the intercharclasses mentioned in interchar.pdf correct?

Are the predefined classes from http://mirror.utexas.edu/ctan/macros/xetex/latex/interchar/interchar.pdf still correct? are classes 255 (for boundary) and 256 (for unused) still the right ones, are those now 4095 and 4096? (based on some answers I've run into on stackoverflow) - Mike

Re: [XeTeX] are the intercharclasses mentioned in interchar.pdf correct?

On 3/27/2017 9:36 AM, David Carlisle wrote: \ifdim\the\XeTeXversion\XeTeXrevision\p@>0.3\p@ \chardef\e@alloc@intercharclass@top=4095 \else \chardef\e@alloc@intercharclass@top=255 \fi nice, cheers - Mike -- Subscriptions, Archive,

Re: [XeTeX] are the intercharclasses mentioned in interchar.pdf correct?

Le 27 mars 2017 à 18:36, David Carlisle a écrit : > For newer xetex the package needs to be updated for the larger range, > the test used in teh latex format > > is > > \ifdim\the\XeTeXversion\XeTeXrevision\p@>0.3\p@ > \chardef\e@alloc@intercharclass@top=4095 >

Re: [XeTeX] are the intercharclasses mentioned in interchar.pdf correct?

On 27 March 2017 at 19:37, jfbu wrote: > .. ah, I don't think I'd noticed xetex was using _quite_ so many digits in its version number:-) as you say the test is a bit suspect but it works in the one case it needs to work so D guess it's OK! David