Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Ok, I see now. I've seen bigger dots in macOS screenshot and zoomed the doc. But with normal zoom it looks definitely better than before (still not as big as on your Linux screenshot). Thanks for the patch. On 14.03.2018 15:01, Pavel Sanda wrote: > No, this is as expected :) > > Many of our

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Yuriy Skalko wrote: > Seems like it doesn't work as expected. Am I missing something? No, this is as expected :) Many of our math decorations (painted through the machinery of deco_table) does not zoom with the font, so if you increase font size to gigantic proportions it looks as in your

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Seems like it doesn't work as expected. Am I missing something? On 13.03.2018 10:03, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Anyone can show windows situation? > > Pavel

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:27:58AM +, Joel Kulesza wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > > > Whether now, or after it's committed I would appreciate testing from > > > someone > > > sitting on Win and Mac(?Retina) machine

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:27:58AM +, Joel Kulesza wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > Whether now, or after it's committed I would appreciate testing from > > someone > > sitting on Win and Mac(?Retina) machine to check whether they see what I >

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Whether now, or after it's committed I would appreciate testing from > someone > sitting on Win and Mac(?Retina) machine to check whether they see what I > see > on linux for \dot and \ddot, i.e. the second attachment. Looks

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > You mean zoom-in changes the visual appearance for \dot in your > > > > environemnt? > > > > It does not change a single pixel here. Do you use linux? > > > > > > I have the same behavior as you, I think: \dot doesn't change at all > > > with zoom. \ddots does. > >

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:57:01PM +, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. > > > > > > > > > > In other words, when you put \dot in mathed you see dot? > > > > > > > > For that one, I can indeed see that the

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. > > > > > > > > In other words, when you put \dot in mathed you see dot? > > > > > > For that one, I can indeed see that the dot is not a dot at low zoom > > > levels as well. > > > > You mean

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:16:02PM +, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. > > > > > > In other words, when you put \dot in mathed you see dot? > > > > For that one, I can indeed see that the dot is not a dot at

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 08/03/2018 ? 18:18, Pavel Sanda a écrit : >> am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots >> for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? >> The fix seems to be so trivial that I wonder whether I am missing >> something? >> Attached is the fix (two

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. > > > > In other words, when you put \dot in mathed you see dot? > > For that one, I can indeed see that the dot is not a dot at low zoom > levels as well. You mean zoom-in changes the visual appearance

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:35:25PM +, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots > > > for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? > > > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. > > In other words,

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Le 08/03/2018 à 18:18, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Hi, am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? The fix seems to be so trivial that I wonder whether I am missing something? Attached is the fix (two short lines make it to something

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots > > for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? > > I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. In other words, when you put \dot in mathed you see dot? This is what I see here and it's

Re: \[ddd]dots in mathed

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:18:47PM +, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Hi, > > am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots > for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? I've seen this in the past also, but only at high zoom levels. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature

\[ddd]dots in mathed

Hi, am I the only one who sees that we paint lines instead of dots for \dots, \ddots, \dddots etc. in mathed? The fix seems to be so trivial that I wonder whether I am missing something? Attached is the fix (two short lines make it to something which looks like a dot). Attached is the solutions