dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones) (06/19/91)
Here's a problem that I've been mulling over for a while, and I've finally decided that it's time to appeal to the greater experience of the net. The problem concerns the woefully inadequate number of math font groups with TeX can handle. First, a description of my system: I'm running TeX 3.0 with the latest version of LaTeX, and with Mittelbach and Schoepf's font selection scheme. I'm also using AMS-LaTeX. I wish to keep the font selection interface as close to that of oldlfont.sty as possible, since I find the scheme implemented in newlfont.sty to be too radically different and don't wish to be eviscerated by the local users. Thus, I currently have oldlfont.sty built into the lplain format. Now, the problem: TeX only allows 16 groups of math fonts. Standard TeX uses 4 of them. The standard LaTeX font selection scheme (and thus oldlfont.sty) defines 7 more: \bffam=\mathgroup4 \sffam=\mathgroup5 \ttfam=\mathgroup6 \itfam=\mathgroup7 \scfam=\mathgroup8 \slfam=\mathgroup9 \lyfam=\mathgroup10 AMS-LaTeX (or, rather, amsfonts.sty) takes up four more: \msa@group=\mathgroup11 \msb@group=\mathgroup12 \frak@@group=\mathgroup13 \bold@@group=\mathgroup14 The result is that there is now exactly one free math group. However, there are some users here who want to use Alan Jeffrey's extra symbol font, cspex. In order to do so, and to get the correct behaviour from the double square brackets, we also need to have his black board bold font, bbold10, loaded. (Incidentally, I have a style file for using these fonts under the M&S font selection scheme, if anyone is interested.) This means that I need one more math font group than TeX allows me to have. BEGIN FROTHING Can anyone provide an example of a more senseless hard wired limitation than the restriction to 16 math font groups? I mean, I know TeX is infamous for such built in restrictions, but this one really seems to take the cake. At least you have some room to increase the various buffer and pool sizes, but what can you do with a limitation that is hardwired into the syntax of the TeX primitives? (Note: Those wishing to express disbelief that any other way of arranging math fonts is possible, or that anyone could possibly want more than 16 math fonts, are invited to hold their tongues.) END FROTHING It would seem that the only way to remedy this problem while maintaining maximal compatibility with standard LaTeX is to get rid of some of the math font groups defined in oldlfont.sty by either overwriting them from within a style file or by defining a new math version that overwrites some of the groups, so that one can switch back and forth between the two math versions at will, which is fine as long as one doesn't happen to want a single formula with a combination of fonts from the math versions provided. My question for the net is twofold: 1) Is there a better way that I'm overlooking? 2) If not, which math font groups should be given the axe? I realize that this is a question best solved heuristically by polling our local users, but I'd also be interested in hearing what the readers of this newsgroup, who have perhaps already thought about these issues, have to say. (My guess, by the way, is that the most expendable groups are \sffam, \scfam and \slfam.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David M. Jones | "And how we live in darkness 17 Simpson Ave #1; Somerville, MA 02144 | Embracing spiteful cold, INTERNET: dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu | Refusing any answers..." UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!mit-athena!dmjones | -- Stan Rogers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------