3 ms·
Probably was supposed to be \notin rather than \not\in? They are not pixel for pixel identical.
by no_protocol 7y ago
Probably was supposed to be \notin rather than \not\in? They are not pixel for pixel identical.
- barbierocks 7y agoYeah, the comparison logic is pretty simple right now (see my comment). Unfortunately, `\not\in` and `\notin` look slightly different. We're figuring out the best way to accept slight variations. It's a tough problem and isn't as simple as increasing the pixel threshold. For example, replacing a + with a - has an extremely small pixel difference (and the two characters have the same width, so it doesn't affect anything else), but we shouldn't accept both.
- Darmani 7y agoHow about the complex number inverse one?
- godbyk 7y agoPerhaps \bar{z} instead of \overline{z}?
- svat 7y agoYou shouldn't accept slight variations IMO. One of the primary motivations for TeX (also the largest chapter in The TeXbook) is "Fine Points of Mathematics Typing". If someone types something that results in slightly different output, that is a good teaching opportunity (maybe highlight the visual diff in red or something) rather than simply accepting it.