W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > August 2000

Re: largeop and stretchy ops

From: Robert Miner <RobertM@mathtype.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:55:13 -0500
Message-Id: <200008081955.OAA16790@wisdom.geomtech.com>
To: mahamud@cs.cmu.edu
CC: www-math@w3.org

Hi Shyjan,

> it seems to me that the same operator having both largeop and stretchy
> specified is either conflicting or redundant. for example,
> <mo>&Vee;</mo> has by default both largeop and stretchy to be set.

It seems a little weird to me too.  I guess I didn't know or have
forgotten there are some operators with both properties set.  I'll ask
Neil Soiffer about it, since he did most of the work on the operator
dictionary.  

However, I thought of one practical consequence of setting both
attributes.  Namely, if you set largeop, and you are in displaystyle,
then the larger size would be the minimum size of the operator -- it
would stretch to cover larger boxes in the same mrow, but if the large
size already covered everything, it would just display at that size.
If you didn't set largeop, then it would stretch if anything larger
than the normal size were in the same mrow.

But I agree that normally it seems like things either have larger
sizes, or the stretch, but not both, and in the WebEQ operator
dictionary, I see I don't set stretchy for things like contour
integrals.  I think that is definitely odd.

--Robert

----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Miner                          email: RobertM@mathtype.com
Design Science, Inc.                  phone: 651-223-2883
http://www.webeq.com                  http://www.mathtype.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2000 15:55:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:49 GMT