The URW Palldio font (mathpazo package) does not provide bold small caps. To get round this issue, I'd want to make a macro to use small caps usually and normal caps in bold text.

I tried this code:


% Use small caps normally except in a bold font: switch to uppercase instead.
% This macro does not work: the `\ifx\f@series\bfdefault` test always fails.
         {\scshape #1}%

% An other macro, where the same test is ok here !?
\newcommand\normal{\fontseries{\ifx\f@series\bfdefault\then m \fi}\selectfont}

% this works OK
This is a \mytextsc{small caps} text.

% this fails
\textbf{This is a bold \mytextsc{upper case} text.}

% here the normal macro works
\textbf{This is a bold \mytextsc{upper \normal case} text.}

For some strange reason, the test \ifx\f@series\bfdefault always fails in the \mytestsc macro, although it works well in the \normal macro. Any ideas how to correct the \mytextsc macro?

migrated from stackoverflow.com Aug 1 '11 at 12:44

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

  • 1
    Try putting \makeatletter\show\f@series\show\bfdefault\makeatother within the body of the \textbf. What does Latex say? – Charles Stewart Apr 10 '10 at 12:34
  • this don't work, the latex file don't compile with show macro. – user312728 Apr 12 '10 at 19:49
  • The \show command interrupts the compilation to show you the definition of commands, you must continue it by typing enter. – Ulrike Fischer Aug 1 '11 at 13:01

\bfdefault is a long macro, \f@series not, so both are different and the test always gives false. This also happen in your "working" normal command which always gives \fontseries{m}. Expand the macros before the test:

  {\scshape #1}%
 \fi }

I don't know why \bfdefault isn't expanding correctly, but you can define a new macro that does what you want:

    \else{\scshape #1}%

There doesn't appear to be any bold small caps for mathpazo, according to Will Robertson:

You should check the Latex warning to be sure.

  • Sorry, I edited the post to clarify my issue. It's not the missing font, but the macro. – user312728 Apr 9 '10 at 19:35

Your Answer

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