RE: Not seeing the wood because of so many trees

["\"Höppner, Dierk\"" <Dierk.Hoeppner@tib.uni-hannover.de>]

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
>