Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

["Höppner, Dierk"]

Hello,

just a short and simple question with hopefully a quick answer:

How do I print '{' and '}'. You may answer with RTFM but please name the M
and page!

Thanks and sorry for the simple question.

greetings

Dierk Höppner
Technische Informationsbibliothek
Universitätsbibliothek Hannover (TIB/UB)
EDV / DOD Operating
Welfengarten 1b, 30167 Hannover
Tel.: 0511/762-4067, Fax: 0511/762-5881
Mobil: 0163/762 4067
E-Mail: dierk.hoeppner@tib-hannover.de
http://www.tib.uni-hannover.de 

Re: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

[Alexander Klink]

Hi Dierk,

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:09:22AM +0100, "Höppner, Dierk" wrote:
> just a short and simple question with hopefully a quick answer:
> 
> How do I print '{' and '}'. You may answer with RTFM but please name the M
> and page!
what about \type|{| and \type|}| (just like \verb in LaTeX)?

> Thanks and sorry for the simple question.
never mind.

Greetings,
		ALeX

Re: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

[Tobias Burnus]

Hello,

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:29:48PM +0100, Alexander Klink wrote:
> > How do I print '{' and '}'. You may answer with RTFM but please name the M
> > and page!
> what about \type|{| and \type|}| (just like \verb in LaTeX)?
Or $\{$ and $\}$ which uses the math font instead of the typewriter
front.

Regards,

Tobias

Re: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

[Hans Hagen]

At 09:17 17/02/2004, Thomas A.Schmitz wrote:
>Sorry for going back to an older thread, but I don't think the question 
>was answered properly. Alexander Klink wanted to know how to typeset "{" 
>and "}". Suggestions were "\type|{| and \type|}|" or "$\{$ and $\}$". 
>Neither of which is satisfactory, because it will typeset them either in 
>typewriter or in math font. We had a discussion about similar questions a 
>while ago. I still think we should have "\{" and "\}" for
>this kind of thing. As long as this isn't available, I see no better 
>solution than "\getglyph{Serif}{123}" and "\getglyph{Serif}{125}" vel. 
>sim. For those of us working in the humanities, these curly braces are 
>sometimes necessary (e.g., in critical editions), and having them in 
>typewriter or math fonts isn't acceptable. So may I continue my rally for 
>\{ etc.?

The problem is that the cmr fonts are not that complete. Once we switch to 
the lmr fonts, this problem will disappear (sincethen we can use other 
encoding vectors)

Hans



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE/POD/CTS
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

[Hans Hagen]

At 07:24 18/02/2004, you wrote:
>A couple of fonts, including Computer Modern Roman, do not have
>curly braces as glyphs. As Computer Modern Roman is the brick-and-mortar
>font of TeX, few people bother that there is no explicit token/command
>that evokes it.

mayhe changing to LatinModern will help, since that's a complete font ...

Hans


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE/POD/CTS
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

["Höppner, Dierk"]

I would second that. I can use it in computer program documentation for many
different things.

Greetings

Dierk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas A.Schmitz [mailto:thomas.schmitz@uni-bonn.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 9:18 AM
> To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
> Subject: Re: [NTG-context] Not seeing the wood because of so 
> many trees
> 
> 
> Sorry for going back to an older thread, but I don't think 
> the question 
> was answered properly. Alexander Klink wanted to know how to typeset 
> "{" and "}". Suggestions were "\type|{| and \type|}|" or "$\{$ and 
> $\}$". Neither of which is satisfactory, because it will typeset them 
> either in typewriter or in math font. We had a discussion 
> about similar 
> questions a while ago. I still think we should have "\{" and 
> "\}" for  
> this kind of thing. As long as this isn't available, I see no better 
> solution than "\getglyph{Serif}{123}" and 
> "\getglyph{Serif}{125}" vel. 
> sim. For those of us working in the humanities, these curly 
> braces are 
> sometimes necessary (e.g., in critical editions), and having them in 
> typewriter or math fonts isn't acceptable. So may I continue my rally 
> for \{ etc.?
> 
> All best
> 
> Thomas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-context mailing list
> ntg-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> 

Re: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

[Johannes Hüsing]

A couple of fonts, including Computer Modern Roman, do not have 
curly braces as glyphs. As Computer Modern Roman is the brick-and-mortar
font of TeX, few people bother that there is no explicit token/command
that evokes it.

You have a point though.

-- 
Johannes Hüsing   There is something fascinating about science. One gets
hannes@ruhrau.de  such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a 
                  trifling investment of fact.                Mark Twain

RE: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

["Höppner, Dierk"]

Hello Tobias and Alexander,

both works. Thank you. I didnt know that I can use '|' instead of '{'}. But
one thing does not work:

{\bf $\{$} 

does not print the '{' bold faced :-(

Is there a workaround for this problem?

Greetings

Dierk Höppner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Burnus [mailto:tobias.burnus@physik.fu-berlin.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 4:04 PM
> To: ntg-context@ntg.nl
> Subject: Re: [NTG-context] Not seeing the wood because of so 
> many trees
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:29:48PM +0100, Alexander Klink wrote:
> > > How do I print '{' and '}'. You may answer with RTFM but 
> please name the M
> > > and page!
> > what about \type|{| and \type|}| (just like \verb in LaTeX)?
> Or $\{$ and $\}$ which uses the math font instead of the typewriter
> front.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tobias
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-context mailing list
> ntg-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> 

Re: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

[Thomas A.Schmitz]

Sorry for going back to an older thread, but I don't think the question 
was answered properly. Alexander Klink wanted to know how to typeset 
"{" and "}". Suggestions were "\type|{| and \type|}|" or "$\{$ and 
$\}$". Neither of which is satisfactory, because it will typeset them 
either in typewriter or in math font. We had a discussion about similar 
questions a while ago. I still think we should have "\{" and "\}" for  
this kind of thing. As long as this isn't available, I see no better 
solution than "\getglyph{Serif}{123}" and "\getglyph{Serif}{125}" vel. 
sim. For those of us working in the humanities, these curly braces are 
sometimes necessary (e.g., in critical editions), and having them in 
typewriter or math fonts isn't acceptable. So may I continue my rally 
for \{ etc.?

All best

Thomas