[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] Query about .special
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] Query about .special |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:35:10 +0100 (CET) |
> What surprises me, though, is that it cannot find the glyph \[Fi]
> when it is *specifically requested* using a \[] construct. I.e.,
> the special font has a glyph Fi defined, but \[Fi] uses the
> fall-back instead of the proper, available glyph. This strikes me
> as a bug rather than a limitation.
Using .schar instead of .fchar to define a fall-back \[Fi] is a
possibility but perhaps not the right solution, given that `f' + `f' +
`i' from the current font usually looks much better than a ligature
glyph \[Fi] from a different font.
Fall-back glyph definitions can be removed easily. This should work,
assuming that DAR has no \[Fi] and DAX has:
.fspecial DAR DAX
.rchar \[Fi]
\[Fi]
Werner