- From: Robert Miner <RobertM@mathtype.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:55:13 -0500
- 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>⋁</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 UTC