Here is my code:

 %\setmathfont{Latin Modern Math}
 The letters $a, \ldots, z$ are used.

It produces this output, when typesetting with XeLatex: enter image description here

If I uncomment the second line, I get: enter image description here

If I uncomment the second and third lines, I get: enter image description here

My questions are:

(1) Are these the expected/correct results, or does it look like my TeX or font installation is somehow messed up?

(2) I suppose the third result is a consequence of the design of the ellipsis character in the Latin Modern fonts. Is this design as intended, or is it regarded as a bug? I personally don't like how it looks, but that's just a matter of taste, I guess.

  • In my opinion this is not the expected/correct result; one may find the usual dots too spaced out, but at least there should be the possibility to choose from different dot spacing. However, I get the same result whether or not Latin Modern Math is loaded. – egreg Jun 23 '13 at 9:16
  • > I get the same result whether or not Latin Modern Math is loaded. So, in other words, you get the same result for my cases #2 and #3? So, that means there is something wrong with my configuration. Or, it's different from yours, anyway. – bubba Jun 23 '13 at 11:18

unicode-math changes \mathellipsis to mean


where \unicodeellipsis just prints the character in whatever is the current font (Latin Modern Math, if you don't set another one).

This does make sense, because, for instance, one can then copy-paste the dots and get a single character rather than three periods.

However I don't like at all this kind of Unicode police that forces a using glyphs based on the preferences of whoever created the font. Right or wrong, spaced out dots are used and the authors of Latin Modern Math should acknowledge it. Adding a stylistic variant to an OpenType font is not difficult.

If you want to revert to the spaced out dots (but using three periods), add


after loading unicode-math.

| improve this answer | |
  • Sounds like Unicode should have a "math-ellipsis" character, maybe, with wider spacing. I don't expect that will happen anytime soon. But defining my own mathellipsis command isn't too bad, and I can space the dots however I like. I guess that's what I'll do. – bubba Jun 23 '13 at 11:16
  • The authors of Latin Modern were just following the Unicode standard, I suppose. That's why they didn't create a widely-spaced ellipsis glyph. – bubba Jun 23 '13 at 11:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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