Re: [Docutils-users] Using rst2latexmath.py (from jensj)

[<mic...@di...>]

From: Guenter Milde [mailto:mi...@us...]
> > +\let\amalg=\undefined
> > +\let\coprod=\undefined
> > +\DeclareSymbolFont{cmsymbols}{OMS}{cmsy}{m}{n}
> > +\DeclareSymbolFont{cmlargesymbols}{OMX}{cmex}{m}{n}
> > +\DeclareMathSymbol{\amalg}{\mathbin}{cmsymbols}{"71}
> > +\DeclareMathSymbol{\coprod}{\mathop}{cmlargesymbols}{"60}
> 
> What is the intention of these re-definitions? Are these fixes or
> defining variants?

These are fixes.  The problem is that mathptmx doesn't define \amalg, \coprod or \jmath, or more precisely defines them to generate errors.  These lines are a fudge to pull in alternative (and perfectly workable) definitions directly from the original computer modern files.  These lines are required because latex_math.txt uses \amalg and \coprod.

The issue, presumably, is that these symbols don't have postscript forms, and for whatever reason the writers of mathptmx didn't want to do the fudge I'm doing here (despite the fact it works perfectly well, as far as I can tell).

For reference, the third symbol \jmath requires these lines:

\let\jmath=\undefined
\DeclareSymbolFont{cmletters}{OML}{cmm}{m}{it}
\DeclareMathSymbol{\jmath}{\mathord}{cmletters}{"7C}


> Dont, use the development version of Docutils (SVN checkout or daily
> snapshot).

Gosh, must be pretty recent: I only checked out my docutils build literally a month ago!

> >    to itex2MML?  Or am I missing more recent work?
> Yes.

:)  Guess I need to do more reading...

> > I'm not subscribed to this list, so *please* CC me.
> I am not sure whether this works via the Gmane usenet interface...

Yes, seemed to get through just fine.

-- 
Please disregard stuff below.