Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is a simplification of 'Please explain a strange interaction between bytefield, unicode-math, and mathtools', which arises from a comment by @JLDiaz (to whom my thanks).

Here is the MWE:

\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
\usepackage{bytefield}
\begin{document}
\begin{bytefield}{16}
  \bitheader{0,15}\\
  \begin{rightwordgroup}{LuaLaTeX} % <= Processed with    
  \bitbox{16}{Without}\\
  \bitbox{16}{Etc}
  \end{rightwordgroup}\\
\end{bytefield}
\end{document}

I've processed this with PdfLaTeX, XeLaTeX, and LuaLaTeX, with the results that follow. (Note that I have checked that it depends on the processor used, not on the name in braces.). Here are the results:

enter image description here

Result: XeLaTeX

enter image description here

So, any ideas what's wrong, and how to fix?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

Well they are using completely different characters for }. Add \showoutput

pdftex uses

................\hbox(0.39998+29.60031)x8.05559, shifted -14.60016
.................\OMX/cmex/m/n/5 )

But luatex uses

................\vbox(36.00037+0.0)x8.8889, shifted 15.50018, direction TLT
.................\hbox(0.0+9.00009)x8.8889, direction TLT
..................\OMX/cmex/m/n/10 9
.................\hbox(0.0+18.00018)x8.8889, direction TLT
..................\OMX/cmex/m/n/10 =
.................\hbox(0.0+9.00009)x8.8889, direction TLT
..................\OMX/cmex/m/n/10 ;

That is three glyph parts stacked by hand (you can see a gap in your image)

Compare (using say pdflatex) the output from

1{\csname OMX/cmex/m/n/5\endcsname )}


2{\csname OMX/cmex/m/n/10\endcsname 9 = ;}

Which produces

enter image description here

someone else would have to say why lualatex is using a different brace construct...

share|improve this answer
    
Yes. The gap is a PDF viewer rendering artifact, not directly a part of the problem. I apologise for not taking more care with my screencap. –  Brent.Longborough Mar 15 '13 at 16:47
    
@Brent.Longborough well not really it was the hint as to where the problem was as you can't have such an artefact in the other cases as they are a single glyph. –  David Carlisle Mar 15 '13 at 16:57
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.