Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 um 09:37:54, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller <sp...@lyx.org> > Am Dienstag, den 21.02.2017, 10:35 -0500 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > If you think your patch is a step forward, and these tests were just > > passing by chance before, then in my opinion the correct way to > > proceed > > is to apply your patch and invert these two tests. > > OK. Note that the two tests need not to be inverted. Since it is just a > "missing glyph" problem, we can include them in the chain that ignores > missing glyphs errors.
That would have been my suggestion too.
> > Can you perhaps add
> > some information on why you these two tests are expected to have
> > problems with xunicode? We can add this information where we invert
> > the
> > tests. By adding comments in invertedTests file, we can easily see
> > why
> > certain tests are inverted.
>
> They do not have problems with xunicode, but without. The reason is
> that the asterisk glyph is not included in the arabic font
> (Scheherazade), but apparently, xunicode defines an extra asterisk
> glyph (for a different purpose) that is being used here. Clearly the
> problem should be fixed somewhere else. A workaround is to redefine the
> thanks command and to use \ast instead of the plain *:
>
> \renewcommand*{\@fnsymbol}[1]{\ensuremath{\ifcase#1\or \ast\or
> \dagger\or \ddagger\or\mathsection\or \mathparagraph\or \|\or
> \ast\ast\or \dagger\dagger\or \ddagger\ddagger \else\@ctrerr\fi}}
Now I am confused. What is your proposal?
a.) Add these tests to the chain of "missing glyph"
or
b.) Add code to the preamble of the two files
?
> Jürgen
>
> >
> > Scott
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
