Re: two questions

[Taco Hoekwater <taco@elvenkind.com>]

Hans Hagen wrote:

> At 09:58 AM 7/9/01 +0200, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
> 
>>Eckhart Guthöhrlein wrote:
>>
>>>At 09:11 06.07.2001 +0000, you wrote:
>>>\def\nolig{\nobreak\discretionary{-}{}{\kern.03em}\nobreak\hskip\z@skip} %
>>>(after changing the catcode of @)
>>>
>>>Is there any problem with that definition? If not, I would suggest
>>>including a similar command in ConTeXt, since ligatures in words like
>>>"Auflage" or "hinauffliegen" have to be corrected.
>>>
>>Not really a problem, but it also allows hyphenation at this point, and
>>ensures that hyphenation for the partial (left&right) words is also
>>possible.
>>This isn't always desired, I think. So there should be two commands I
>>guess. One to just block ligatures, and another that does what babel
>>does.
>>
>  
> taco, do you remember what the proposed [etex] lig prevention primitive
> was? \nolig or \noligs or so [lots my notes] and what is the most robust
> definition? \kern\zeropoint? 

IIRC, both were proposed. \noligs to disable all ligs in the current 
font, and \nolig for individual use. \kern\zeropoint is probably the 
cleanest definition for \nolig (\noligs is nearly undoable in macros),
and then you probably need an |x| command for the hyphenatable thing
(as in babel).

Greetings,

Taci