Thanks for your response Hans.

On 25/07/2017 00:12, Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 7/24/2017 11:41 PM, Sebastian L. wrote:
>> Yes it helps, thanks; it explains why there was so little response to 
>> this. ;)
>> After some search I found regular style pictures of it. I was sure, 
>> that it was italic as standard, because that's what "modern" 
>> suggests: compability for current regulations (i.e. regular 
>> constants, italic variables) as well as an attractive style overall. 
>> But since Neo Euler seems to have no italic style, it is of no use 
>> for academic purposes, like in my case.
>
> originally "euler" is a math companion font to "concrete" and it's not 
> trivial to make en euler with all text styles (maybe some day the tex 
> gyre project will give it a try) .. btw, the same is true for sans 
> fonts: at some point one runs out of distinctive features
>
> btw, it also fits with pagella (see type-imp-euler)

I don't want to argue with you Hans, as I know that you have better 
things to do. But for clarification: for a non-power TeX / CTX user this 
is information, that one usually doesn't get, as it makes deep interest 
in fonts creation necessary. On the other hand I don't expect you to be 
the one who teaches users about fonts, relationships or even the motives 
behind their creation. Thanks for your explanation though.

>> The story, to add to the subject of the mail, in case somebody 
>> searches the archive for this, is that I wasn't able to find out is 
>> how to change the math font only, as i like the standard font with 
>> \setupbodyfont[sans] as global setup but not the style of 
>> (non-modern) Euler.
>> I tried
>>
>> \definefontfamily [mainface] [mm] [Xits Math]
>
> most users who mess with fonts either use the selectfont mechanism or 
> peek into the type-imp files to see how to set up a combination

I see. Well I just used search on the CTX wiki to find information about 
selectfont, but neither selectfont nor \selectfont gives me any result. 
If it's something TeX related, then I have to say that I didn't start to 
use CTX to get into TeX before. Anyways this is where it starts. This 
time it's type-imp, other topics will make it necessary to search other 
source files and then it starts over... This is something for you, the 
other coders or users who want to tweak CTX or its components, but a 
standard user will never do this, as he usually doesn't know where to 
look for info.

>> but this changes the whole typeface; not what I want.
>> So the trick is to define the standard font for the rest of the font 
>> variations. The standard font can be found out with \showbodyfont. At 
>> least that's what it suggests. But it gives you "modern-design" as 
>> font. When you use this within \definefontfamily then it gives you 
>> nothing, because the real id of the standard font is "modern". So to 
>> change the math font only and keep the main font standard, you have 
>> to use this command group (just in case somebody looks for it):
>>
>> \definefontfamily [mainface] [rm] [Modern] % = serif
>> \definefontfamily [mainface] [ss] [Modern] % = sans
>> \definefontfamily [mainface] [tt] [Modern] % = mono (teletype)
>> \definefontfamily [mainface] [mm] [Xits Math] [rscale=1.03] % = math
>>
>> But as this seems to be so trivial, that few people care, I really 
>> have to wonder why people who test CTX criticise the lack of 
>> documentation. We (especially who haven't been through LaTeX or even 
>> TeX) seem to be a minority.
>
> In what sense?

In the sense that we (or let's even say just me) don't know where to 
look for information. I mean how many software do you have, where you go 
through its source files to understand how it does basic tasks? For me 
it's only CTX and as a consequence thereof Textadept, but for me that's 
already /too much/. So IMHO this must not be the future... Except for 
those who can't stop loving open source software that is usually made 
for a specific topic in the first place.

>
> Anyway, there is quite some documentation (also about fonts) available 
> (and the context distribution documentation section has examples).

There you are right. There is so much documentation that it's 
overwhelming. For instance documentation on fonts goes over several wiki 
pages. Suffice it to say you have to know what you are looking for, and 
not where. And the more you start searching, the more wiki pages you 
have to go through. A better approach might be to merge several pages 
that belong to a single chapter to one single wiki page. But that's just 
my opinion. Another example: I have found different links to manuals 
like Hoekwater's or Hagen's (on the wiki). But on several pages you get 
links to several versions of the manual, for instance I found one link 
to Hoekwater's 2003 version and to 2011 or 2013 version (I don't 
remember the exact dates as I deleted them both). Some time later I read 
that there is an online manual somewhere in the download area, that has 
to be built first. But there seems to be no manual for Windows users how 
to do this. I.e. one has to get some basic Linux info or similar, just 
to build a manual. I don't find this to be user friendly at all. That 
being said, the US army has a code name for something like that: Charlie 
Foxtrot (abbreviation for cluster fuck, i.e. chaos). So indeed there is 
plenty of information, but most of it is written from the POV of a long 
time user or a programmer. There clearly lacks documentation from the 
POV of a simple user who has never used TeX or its kind.

I mean sure, it could be only me who has a hard time understanding CTX, 
but since I have found out many things about CTX without asking anybody 
but reading information that is already there, the fact that I found out 
how to change only the math font after approx two years somehow shows 
me, that it's not only some lack of my will to read all the pages 
several times to understand CTX but also the lack of passion in the 
documentation.

Still I won't give up. So far I am a happy CTX user.

Cheers, Sebastian


>> Cheers and thanks, S.
>> On 23/07/2017 21:22, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2017 03:16 AM, Sebastian L. wrote:
>>>> Hi, I have trouble with Neo Euler font after playing around with those
>>>> options.
>>>> [...]
>>>> I am pretty sure that before I started mixing the fonts in one single
>>>> document, Neo Euler was italic.
>>>>
>>>> Does anybody have a clue what might have went wrong?
>>> Hi Sebastian,
>>>
>>> as far as I remember, Neo Euler is a regular font only
>>> (https://github.com/khaledhosny/euler-otf).
>>>
>>> Euler is an italic font and it might have the other regular, bold, bold
>>> italic typefaces (I don’t know).
>>>
>>> I hope it helps,
>>>
>>> Pablo
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________________________________ 
>>
>> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an 
>> entry to the Wiki!
>>
>> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / 
>> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
>> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
>> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
>> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
>> ___________________________________________________________________________________ 
>>
>>
>
>