Update of bug #59031 (project groff): Item Group: Documentation => Incorrect behaviour Status: In Progress => Need Info
_______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #4: You were explicitly talking about *sets*, so i made it clear that these symbols do not represent sets but functions. The reason that the word "function" is not in groff_char(7) is probably just that there is not enough space. Mentioning the "Gothic" is more important, because with "Gothic" the "function" is clear. With "function" or "part" but without "Gothic", it would not be clear which glyph these produce because as you say, there are different possibilities to represent these functions (but *if* the Gothics are used in the context of complex numbers, their meaning is clear). All three of your points are wrong. 1. The descriptions are correct and clear. 2. Representing these function with Gothic is a valid choice. 3. The glyph names are not wrong. The Gothic R and I symbols are commonly read aloud as "Re" and "Im". These symbols do not indicate sets and the symbols do not imply that. Your parenthetic remark makes no sense to me, but most definitely C is not the same as iR in any sense. All your solutions are wrong, too. A. Breaks compatibility and removes useful functionality for no reason whatsoever. B. is just outrageously wrong. \(Re, i.e. the Re() function, is never represented with a double-struck R, and the field of real numbers is never called "Re"; when read, it is "er". Besides, U+221D is "PROPORTIONAL TO". \(Im is never represented with a double-struck I. Even iR is usually not represented with a double-struck I because it does not form a ring (is not closed under multiplication). Double-struck letters are commonly used for sets having a structure (like a field, ring, whatever), not for bare sets. C. also breaks compatibility and functionality for no reason. There is no error. D. is the correct solution, except that nothing is wrong. If you want to represent Re() and Im() as Re() and Im() in your printed formula, which, as you say, is indeed one valid choice, you can simply put the strings "Re(" etc. into your roff(7) source and don't need any escapes. But if you want the Gothics, the escapes are needed to keep the source readable. So please, just drop this already. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59031> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/