[OS X TeX] fourier behaves unexpected

[Ross Moore]

Hello Arno.

On 08/12/2004, at 3:56 AM, Arno Kruse wrote:

> But this happens:
>
> \textbf{g)} gives an ugly output: the bracked nearly touches the "g";

adjust the spacing manually by adding a kern:
          \textbf{g\kern.1cm)}
                                 ^^^^--- experiment to find the right 
amount.
Since  g)  is not a word, but presumably a label for a list-item,
then you should be using a macro anyway. Roll your own,
such as:
   \newcommand{\bfitem}{\textbf{#1\kern.1cm)}}
and use

   \bfitem{d} ......
   \bfitem{e} ......
   \bfitem{f} ......
   \bfitem{g} ......


> $cm^3$ gives another kind of ugly output: the spacing between "c" and 
> "m" is too large.

If your use of  'cm'  here is meant to be shorthand for 'centimetres' 
then your
marlup is quite wrong.
What you want is    $\mathrm{cm}^3$ .

Better would be to roll your own macro, such as
       \newcommand{\units}[1]{\mathord{\mathrm{#1}}}
and use. e.g.:
                  $75.352\units{cm}^3$

Alternatively,
        \usepackage{units}
and use the  \unit   command that it provides.
This has
  (i)  an optional argument for compound units
                 e.g. \unit[m]{sec}^2   --->  m sec^2 ;
(ii)  a Boolean package-option for adjusting the amount of space
        between the parts of such a compound unit;
(iii)  a test for whether you are already in math-mode, or not ;
(iv)  a \unitfrac  macro for setting quotient units as a nice fraction,
         rather than using  ^{-1)  etc.


>
> There are more unaesthetic combinations, and I get the unpleasant 
> feeling that there is something wrong - but I do not know what. I am 
> using OSX 10.3.6 and TeX Live 2004.

Fourier is designed for high-quality mathematics typesetting.
You need to learn the detailed typesetting rules for mathematics,
which involves using the right typefaces and amounts of white space
according to the type of infomation that you are presenting.

$cm^3$ has the meaning of  $ c \times m^3 $  where the 'c' and 'm'
are variables, so are set in italics and separated by an
`implicit multiplication' amount of space.
Doubtless your other `unaesthetic combinations' contain similar
wrong interpretations and need to be recoded appropriately.



Hope this helps,

	Ross Moore

>
> arno
>
> --------------------- Info ---------------------
> Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
>           & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
> List Post: <mailto:MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu>
>
>

--------------------- Info ---------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
           & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Post: <mailto:MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu>