Re: [Groff] On the glyphs `~=' and `|='

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Let me see if I understood:
> 
> ~= <nil>

No.  It's the same as `~~' for backwards compatibility in groff.  I
only discourage its use.

> =~ U+2245

Yes.

> ~~ U+2248

Yes

> |= U+2243  -->> Hmmm.... Wouldn't \(-~ or \(~- be more mnemonic?

Of course, but `|=' is in CSTR 54 so I won't change that.  In the
next version of groff, you can always say

  .char -~ u2243

to avoid any ambiguities.

> What about:
> 
>          -~ -> U+2242
>          ~- -> U+2243
>          |~ -> U+2244
>          |= -> U+2246?
>          ~= -> U+224A, or better yet, U+224C?

Not `officially'.  I won't introduce new glyph names (with some
exception as `|~' since it is in CSTR 54).

> Sorry I don't have the English Unicode names table handy, I am
> cheating with the char map utility in Win2K and looking at the
> glyphs in Lucida Sans Unicode, all names are translated to Spanish
> :). Of course this is an academic exercise, for anything but the DVI
> driver (symbol doesn't have most of these glyphs, and the CM Math
> fonts have some but not all of them).

Most of them can be easily constructed.


    Werner