Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!educ-isis!teexdwu
From: teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK)
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: Why not change METAFONT to produce pk fonts?
Message-ID: <1990Nov24.204011.20458@ioe.lon.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Nov 90 20:40:11 GMT
References: <527@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>
Reply-To: teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK)
Organization: Institute of Education University of London
Lines: 17

In article <527@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> jtc@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (J.T. Conklin) writes:
>Has anyone considered changing METAFONT's output font format from gf
>to pk fonts?  What are the drawbacks of doing this?

It's a good question.  However, the GF format *is* more generic than
PK.  For one thing, a PK file cannot include MF specials.  "Eh?" I hear
you cry.  Well, if you print out smoke proofs of MF characters, then
Knuth has set up macros in the plain and cm bases that use specials
extensively to format the output.  The "byline" telling what the
character is, and several other features, are all done with specials.

There are more substantive issues too, but I don't have my MF book to
hand, and I can't remember them.

Perhaps Tom Rokicki, who created the PK format, could chip in?

Dominik