xfig device (was [Rd] Re: [R] MetaPost device?)
Peter Dalgaard BSA
08 Apr 2000 11:37:19 +0200
Prof Brian D Ripley <email@example.com> writes:
> > the length of "threshold" in the relevant font... Of course you could
> Do you mean *width* of "threshold"?
Um, yes. The *length* is 9, I suppose.
> > (potentially) get the driver to output actual TeX, but then you have
> > no inkling about the total size of the formula object, and it comes
> > out as TeX code inside XFig. Xfig is pretty much geared towards
> > postscript fonts, so I suppose the most practical thing to do is to
> > assume PS as the final target and accept the approximations caused by
> > the screen fonts while previewing.
> I think I said that in part of my posting which you omitted!
So you did. (I must have woken up too early today...) What I forgot to
add was something to the effect that as long as you keep formulas as
"compound objects" in XFig then it shouldn't be a major obstacle to
moving the labels around.
> R currently seems to ignore kerning in computing string dimensions.
..which we should probably fix at some point. Can't be that hard?
(BTW, I forget whether Postscript itself does kerning by default or
one has to use a special string operator to obtain it?)
Also, I suspect that some of the finer points of the Appendix G of the
TeXbook are getting lost -- the micro-spacing in formulas appear to be
not quite right.
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (firstname.lastname@example.org) FAX: (+45) 35327907
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To: email@example.com