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
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
>
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,
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