Joseph Wright
Joseph Wright
> I tried the approach, but the problem with this is that it does not pass the actual command and options, and I can't see how to do that without...
> > but we have not provided a fully-flexible mechanism to pick up arbitrary arguments. I'm not sure it would be easy. For example, here we'd need to expandably parse...
The current implementation covers four codepoints: U+0389, U+03AE, U+1F22 and U+1F2A. I think before extending at all I'd want to get input from a real expert.
This is a dupe of https://github.com/josephwright/siunitx/issues/208, essentially.
I've looked again and this issue would be a clearer, targeted task than leaving is all inside #208. I'm going to put this down for v3.5 (as the 'big' feature...
> What do you mean by `'native' exponent`? The exponent if none is specified? Are there other sensible options than `e0` or am I misunderstanding you? I mean if you...
> Aside: I'd much prefer if every map-function in `expl3` had the same argument order like `\keyval_parse:nnn`, but that ship has sailed before I could write... In general, we favour...
A few obvious questions - What is the feeling about this vs the existing 'lazy' approach? - If we want to go for it, is the underlying test just 'LuaTeX/XeTeX'...
We've decided on `opentype` for the name - that's the fundamental idea.
Could you put your patch in as a PR?