Will two-letter font style commands (bf , it , …) ever be resurrected in LaTeX?












58















I understand that bf and it are now obsolete in LaTeX and that textbf and textit are proper, as they produce more sophisticated (in particular, cumulative and properly kerned) changes to font style. I have read the English version of "Obsolete commands and packages", v. 1.8.5.7 of l2tabu, Sec. 2.1 and I understand the rules and their reasons, as well as the several other commands that are affected.



However, I find it convenient to use LaTeX for notetaking during lectures, and in that rushed environment, shortening a command by any number of keystrokes helps keep me from falling behind. bf and its two-letter kin are still very useful to me for that reason, and once a presentation is finished I can go through and replace all appearances of bf et al. with textbf et al.



My question is this: is there a plan eventually to replace the short font style commands like bf with the implementations of textbf etc. some day, or should I expect bf always to remain in existence but obsolete, for reasons of backward compatibility with original TeX? Original TeX has been greatly improved on in countless ways, but in the heat of transcription I sometimes miss its conciseness.










share|improve this question




















  • 24





    You can alias the commands, lettttexttt and you will be ok.

    – Yiannis Lazarides
    Apr 9 '11 at 3:37






  • 8





    Perhaps you could migrate to a markdown format like multimarkdown?

    – Emre
    Apr 9 '11 at 3:41






  • 4





    Why don't you use a LaTeX editor that has keyboard shortcut support for the formatting commands? If you know how to use Emacs (or are willing to learn), AucTeX is best-of-breed, but there are other more GUI-oriented options (Texmaker, to name one) as well.

    – Aaron
    Apr 9 '11 at 8:48






  • 5





    @Yiannis: I think you mean letttttfamily!

    – Martin Scharrer
    Jul 29 '11 at 20:10






  • 2





    tt has the clear advantage to switch to a fully defined font, which is not achieved by ttfamily but rather by normalfontttfamily (as done not by LaTeX format, but by LaTeX standard classes when providing a tt macro; I am skipping here math mode discussion). Why do people hate tt will remain an eternal mystery to me. KOMA-script turned it into an error in recent releases, breaking old, possibly useful packages, now unmaintained, which used it. Is this reasonable? No.

    – jfbu
    Jan 5 at 11:43
















58















I understand that bf and it are now obsolete in LaTeX and that textbf and textit are proper, as they produce more sophisticated (in particular, cumulative and properly kerned) changes to font style. I have read the English version of "Obsolete commands and packages", v. 1.8.5.7 of l2tabu, Sec. 2.1 and I understand the rules and their reasons, as well as the several other commands that are affected.



However, I find it convenient to use LaTeX for notetaking during lectures, and in that rushed environment, shortening a command by any number of keystrokes helps keep me from falling behind. bf and its two-letter kin are still very useful to me for that reason, and once a presentation is finished I can go through and replace all appearances of bf et al. with textbf et al.



My question is this: is there a plan eventually to replace the short font style commands like bf with the implementations of textbf etc. some day, or should I expect bf always to remain in existence but obsolete, for reasons of backward compatibility with original TeX? Original TeX has been greatly improved on in countless ways, but in the heat of transcription I sometimes miss its conciseness.










share|improve this question




















  • 24





    You can alias the commands, lettttexttt and you will be ok.

    – Yiannis Lazarides
    Apr 9 '11 at 3:37






  • 8





    Perhaps you could migrate to a markdown format like multimarkdown?

    – Emre
    Apr 9 '11 at 3:41






  • 4





    Why don't you use a LaTeX editor that has keyboard shortcut support for the formatting commands? If you know how to use Emacs (or are willing to learn), AucTeX is best-of-breed, but there are other more GUI-oriented options (Texmaker, to name one) as well.

    – Aaron
    Apr 9 '11 at 8:48






  • 5





    @Yiannis: I think you mean letttttfamily!

    – Martin Scharrer
    Jul 29 '11 at 20:10






  • 2





    tt has the clear advantage to switch to a fully defined font, which is not achieved by ttfamily but rather by normalfontttfamily (as done not by LaTeX format, but by LaTeX standard classes when providing a tt macro; I am skipping here math mode discussion). Why do people hate tt will remain an eternal mystery to me. KOMA-script turned it into an error in recent releases, breaking old, possibly useful packages, now unmaintained, which used it. Is this reasonable? No.

    – jfbu
    Jan 5 at 11:43














58












58








58


7






I understand that bf and it are now obsolete in LaTeX and that textbf and textit are proper, as they produce more sophisticated (in particular, cumulative and properly kerned) changes to font style. I have read the English version of "Obsolete commands and packages", v. 1.8.5.7 of l2tabu, Sec. 2.1 and I understand the rules and their reasons, as well as the several other commands that are affected.



However, I find it convenient to use LaTeX for notetaking during lectures, and in that rushed environment, shortening a command by any number of keystrokes helps keep me from falling behind. bf and its two-letter kin are still very useful to me for that reason, and once a presentation is finished I can go through and replace all appearances of bf et al. with textbf et al.



My question is this: is there a plan eventually to replace the short font style commands like bf with the implementations of textbf etc. some day, or should I expect bf always to remain in existence but obsolete, for reasons of backward compatibility with original TeX? Original TeX has been greatly improved on in countless ways, but in the heat of transcription I sometimes miss its conciseness.










share|improve this question
















I understand that bf and it are now obsolete in LaTeX and that textbf and textit are proper, as they produce more sophisticated (in particular, cumulative and properly kerned) changes to font style. I have read the English version of "Obsolete commands and packages", v. 1.8.5.7 of l2tabu, Sec. 2.1 and I understand the rules and their reasons, as well as the several other commands that are affected.



However, I find it convenient to use LaTeX for notetaking during lectures, and in that rushed environment, shortening a command by any number of keystrokes helps keep me from falling behind. bf and its two-letter kin are still very useful to me for that reason, and once a presentation is finished I can go through and replace all appearances of bf et al. with textbf et al.



My question is this: is there a plan eventually to replace the short font style commands like bf with the implementations of textbf etc. some day, or should I expect bf always to remain in existence but obsolete, for reasons of backward compatibility with original TeX? Original TeX has been greatly improved on in countless ways, but in the heat of transcription I sometimes miss its conciseness.







fonts macros formatting obsolete






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jul 29 '11 at 20:12









Martin Scharrer

200k45636818




200k45636818










asked Apr 9 '11 at 3:31









brannerchinesebrannerchinese

2,87762455




2,87762455








  • 24





    You can alias the commands, lettttexttt and you will be ok.

    – Yiannis Lazarides
    Apr 9 '11 at 3:37






  • 8





    Perhaps you could migrate to a markdown format like multimarkdown?

    – Emre
    Apr 9 '11 at 3:41






  • 4





    Why don't you use a LaTeX editor that has keyboard shortcut support for the formatting commands? If you know how to use Emacs (or are willing to learn), AucTeX is best-of-breed, but there are other more GUI-oriented options (Texmaker, to name one) as well.

    – Aaron
    Apr 9 '11 at 8:48






  • 5





    @Yiannis: I think you mean letttttfamily!

    – Martin Scharrer
    Jul 29 '11 at 20:10






  • 2





    tt has the clear advantage to switch to a fully defined font, which is not achieved by ttfamily but rather by normalfontttfamily (as done not by LaTeX format, but by LaTeX standard classes when providing a tt macro; I am skipping here math mode discussion). Why do people hate tt will remain an eternal mystery to me. KOMA-script turned it into an error in recent releases, breaking old, possibly useful packages, now unmaintained, which used it. Is this reasonable? No.

    – jfbu
    Jan 5 at 11:43














  • 24





    You can alias the commands, lettttexttt and you will be ok.

    – Yiannis Lazarides
    Apr 9 '11 at 3:37






  • 8





    Perhaps you could migrate to a markdown format like multimarkdown?

    – Emre
    Apr 9 '11 at 3:41






  • 4





    Why don't you use a LaTeX editor that has keyboard shortcut support for the formatting commands? If you know how to use Emacs (or are willing to learn), AucTeX is best-of-breed, but there are other more GUI-oriented options (Texmaker, to name one) as well.

    – Aaron
    Apr 9 '11 at 8:48






  • 5





    @Yiannis: I think you mean letttttfamily!

    – Martin Scharrer
    Jul 29 '11 at 20:10






  • 2





    tt has the clear advantage to switch to a fully defined font, which is not achieved by ttfamily but rather by normalfontttfamily (as done not by LaTeX format, but by LaTeX standard classes when providing a tt macro; I am skipping here math mode discussion). Why do people hate tt will remain an eternal mystery to me. KOMA-script turned it into an error in recent releases, breaking old, possibly useful packages, now unmaintained, which used it. Is this reasonable? No.

    – jfbu
    Jan 5 at 11:43








24




24





You can alias the commands, lettttexttt and you will be ok.

– Yiannis Lazarides
Apr 9 '11 at 3:37





You can alias the commands, lettttexttt and you will be ok.

– Yiannis Lazarides
Apr 9 '11 at 3:37




8




8





Perhaps you could migrate to a markdown format like multimarkdown?

– Emre
Apr 9 '11 at 3:41





Perhaps you could migrate to a markdown format like multimarkdown?

– Emre
Apr 9 '11 at 3:41




4




4





Why don't you use a LaTeX editor that has keyboard shortcut support for the formatting commands? If you know how to use Emacs (or are willing to learn), AucTeX is best-of-breed, but there are other more GUI-oriented options (Texmaker, to name one) as well.

– Aaron
Apr 9 '11 at 8:48





Why don't you use a LaTeX editor that has keyboard shortcut support for the formatting commands? If you know how to use Emacs (or are willing to learn), AucTeX is best-of-breed, but there are other more GUI-oriented options (Texmaker, to name one) as well.

– Aaron
Apr 9 '11 at 8:48




5




5





@Yiannis: I think you mean letttttfamily!

– Martin Scharrer
Jul 29 '11 at 20:10





@Yiannis: I think you mean letttttfamily!

– Martin Scharrer
Jul 29 '11 at 20:10




2




2





tt has the clear advantage to switch to a fully defined font, which is not achieved by ttfamily but rather by normalfontttfamily (as done not by LaTeX format, but by LaTeX standard classes when providing a tt macro; I am skipping here math mode discussion). Why do people hate tt will remain an eternal mystery to me. KOMA-script turned it into an error in recent releases, breaking old, possibly useful packages, now unmaintained, which used it. Is this reasonable? No.

– jfbu
Jan 5 at 11:43





tt has the clear advantage to switch to a fully defined font, which is not achieved by ttfamily but rather by normalfontttfamily (as done not by LaTeX format, but by LaTeX standard classes when providing a tt macro; I am skipping here math mode discussion). Why do people hate tt will remain an eternal mystery to me. KOMA-script turned it into an error in recent releases, breaking old, possibly useful packages, now unmaintained, which used it. Is this reasonable? No.

– jfbu
Jan 5 at 11:43










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















42














The simple answer is no, because the new font commands work better for the reasons in the links you cite.



The best way to reduce your typing to customize your editor. In my editor (TeXShop on a Mac) I have the command textbf{} bound to Command-B, and emph{} to Command-I. (I generally don't use textit{}) This makes it simple to use the "new" font commands in my source but with drastically reduced typing.



Most editors should be able to do this sort of shortcut.






share|improve this answer





















  • 4





    I'd imagine that if we ever succeed in writing LaTeX3 as a stand-alone format, we won't even include bf, etc. There's nothing stopping you doing letbftextbf, though.

    – Joseph Wright
    Apr 9 '11 at 7:37






  • 1





    @Joseph: Shouldn't it be letbfbfseries? After all bf doesn't take an argument.

    – Martin Scharrer
    Apr 9 '11 at 10:03











  • @Martin: From the question, it seemed that the idea was to use bf as a short-hand for textbf, not for bfseries. Hence my suggestion. (I'd say that bf is not a LaTeX command, so it does not have a 'defined' LaTeX syntax. So the OP can do what he likes!)

    – Joseph Wright
    Apr 9 '11 at 10:05






  • 3





    @Joseph: Ok, in his own document he can. As long no one still used bf in some package.

    – Martin Scharrer
    Apr 9 '11 at 10:08





















30














To expand on Alan's good answer (and to reiterate his ‘no’) there's another big reason that bf and it are not recommended now: they are short and easy to type, but they do not have semantics. LaTeX attempts to separate content and formatting in its markup, and these font changing commands break such ideals.



In the rough, commands to type often as part of your document should be short and meaningful; commands to define formatting decisions should be long and descriptive.






share|improve this answer































    27














    Following on the markdown idea mentionned in comments by @Emre, it can be coded in LaTeX. For instance, the code below gets *italics* and **bold** to work (with nesting as well).



    documentclass{article}
    makeatletter
    newcommand{star@out}{%
    star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@inbf@gobble}%
    {bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@init}}
    newcommand{star@inbf}{%
    star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@initbf}}
    newcommand{star@init}{%
    star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@initbf}{egroup}}
    newcommand{star@initbf}{star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{egroup}}
    letstar@currentstar@out

    newcommand{star@ifnext}[2]{%
    def reserved@a {#1}%
    def reserved@b {#2}%
    futurelet @let@token star@ifnext@aux
    }
    begingroup
    catcode`*=13
    @firstofone{endgroup
    newcommand{*}{star@current}
    newcommand{star@ifnext@aux}{%
    ifx @let@token *let reserved@c reserved@a
    else let reserved@c reserved@b
    fi
    reserved@c
    }
    }
    makeatother

    AtBeginDocument{catcode`*=13}


    begin{document}

    Hello, *th**i**s* is a **test, *to see* whether** it works.

    end{document}


    EDIT as per Hendrik Vogt's suggestion. The construction



    begingroup
    catcode`*=13
    @firstofone{endgroup ... }


    ensures that every * within the argument of @firstofone has catcode 13. Namely, a group is started, in which * are active, then @firstofone does nothing but forces TeX to read its argument, converting characters of the input file to tokens (with catcode fixed, except if someone later uses scantokens), and the group then ends with endgroup. The catcode of * is restored, which means that any * which is read later (i.e., not those in the argument of @firstofone) will be of catcode 12 (other). The advantage of this construction over doing catcode`*=13 before and catcode`*=12 after is that the catcode of * keeps whichever value it had, even if it wasn't 12.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      It would be great to see an explanation what @firstofone does here.

      – Hendrik Vogt
      Jun 21 '11 at 15:38











    • See edit. Thanks for the tip.

      – Bruno Le Floch
      Jun 21 '11 at 21:11











    • Thanks for the edit! Now I remember: This trick reminded me of the lccode trick I saw in several of Phillip Goutet's answers, but it's somewhat different.

      – Hendrik Vogt
      Jun 22 '11 at 9:08











    • @Hendrik: it is definitely inspired from the lccode trick (which I think I learnt from Philippe Goutet). It is less powerful, though, since that won't work to change the catcode of a letter (except if that letter appears nowhere in control sequences in the argument).

      – Bruno Le Floch
      Jun 22 '11 at 12:50






    • 4





      Surely it would be easier at this stage to just write in markdown and then use e.g. Pandoc to convert it to LaTeX later…

      – Seamus
      May 26 '12 at 15:38



















    6














    Following the answer of Bruno, the wiki package allow a very simplified entry of
    boldface and italics fonts using the Wikipedia syntax:



    documentclass{article}
    usepackage{wiki}
    begin{document}
    wikimarkup
    Write in '''bold''', ''italic'' or '''''both'''''.
    end{document}


    Bold and italics can be nested and even overlapped, so that you can obtain the eqivalent to textit{intertextbf{sec}}textbf{tion}
    with ''inter'''sec''tion'''.






    share|improve this answer































      5














      First, regarding the use of the PlainTeX-based font switching commands rm, sf, tt, etc in a LaTeX document: Even though the LaTeX2e kernel does not define these commands, they are in fact still available if you use one of the "standard" document classes -- article, report, and book -- or a document class that's based on these three classes. For more on how rm, sf, etc are implemented in the article, report, and book classes see, e.g., this answer to the posting Is there any reason not to use let to redefine a deprecated control sequence to the currently recommended one?



      Second, here's a solution that uses LuaLaTeX to convert some simple markdown-type text formatting "instructions" into LaTeX code. Specifically, text inside matched pairs of ***, **, and * characters in a line of input is rendered in bold-italics, bold, and italics, respectively.



      The operation of the Lua function that does the main work can be initiated and terminated via two LaTeX macros named MarkdownOn and MarkdownOff. The Lua function doesn't operate on material contained in verbatim-like environments.



      enter image description here



      documentclass{article}

      %% Lua-side code
      usepackage{luacode}
      begin{luacode}
      in_verbatim = false
      function markdown ( line )
      -- don't operate on input if we're in a verbabim-type environment
      if string.find ( line , "\begin{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
      in_verbatim = true
      elseif string.find ( line , "\end{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
      in_verbatim = false
      elseif in_verbatim == false then
      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*%*(.-)%*%*%*" , "\textbf{\textit{%1}}")
      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*(.-)%*%*" , "\textbf{%1}")
      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*(.-)%*" , "\textit{%1}" )
      end
      return line
      end
      end{luacode}

      %% TeX-side code
      newcommandMarkdownOn{directlua{luatexbase.add_to_callback(
      "process_input_buffer", markdown, "markdown" )}}
      newcommandMarkdownOff{directlua{luatexbase.remove_from_callback(
      "process_input_buffer", "markdown" )}}

      setlengthparindent{0pt} % just for this example

      begin{document}
      MarkdownOn
      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned on:

      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***

      bigskip
      A line inside a texttt{verbatim} environment:

      begin{verbatim}
      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
      end{verbatim}

      bigskip
      MarkdownOff
      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned off:

      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
      end{document}





      share|improve this answer





















      • 1





        Did the LaTeX kernel ever define those commands? As far as I know, bf, it etc. are TeX font switches and nothing to do with LaTeX.

        – cfr
        Aug 20 '16 at 21:34











      • @cfr - It depends on the version of LaTeX: The LaTeX2.09 kernel -- yes, I'll admit to being old enough to having used LaTeX2.09 for real work ... -- did define rm, bf, etc. In contrast, the LaTeX2e kernel does not. However, the "standard" document classes (but not the memoir class) designed for LaTeX2e do provide definitions for rm, bf etc, and the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document.

        – Mico
        Aug 20 '16 at 21:38













      • Fair enough. I never used 2.09. Memoir can define them, I think, if you use the relevant class option, but it will still complain with warnings, I believe.

        – cfr
        Aug 20 '16 at 21:45











      • @Mico "*the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document. *" is not exactly true. Try in LaTeX Largett AAAshowoutput, you will see it uses OT1/cmtt/m/n/14.4 and the meaning of the latter is select font cmtt12 at 14.4pt, which is not the same as in Plain TeX where tt would also reset the fontsize, as it expands in text mode to the font switch tentt and fonttentt=cmtt10 % typewriter from plain.tex.

        – jfbu
        Jan 5 at 14:46






      • 1





        :) I could not find my quote of you in your answer but I had picked it from your comment, thus the sin is already attenuated as comments are more volatile :)

        – jfbu
        Jan 5 at 14:53



















      1














      I had the same problem recently:




      scrartcl Error: undefined old font command `bf'.




      After some investigations, I found this on the tug.org web site:




      makeatletter
      DeclareOldFontCommand{rm}{normalfontrmfamily}{mathrm}
      DeclareOldFontCommand{sf}{normalfontsffamily}{mathsf}
      DeclareOldFontCommand{tt}{normalfontttfamily}{mathtt}
      DeclareOldFontCommand{bf}{normalfontbfseries}{mathbf}
      DeclareOldFontCommand{it}{normalfontitshape}{mathit}
      DeclareOldFontCommand{sl}{normalfontslshape}{@nomathsl}
      DeclareOldFontCommand{sc}{normalfontscshape}{@nomathsc}
      makeatother


      It allows to recover all "old" TeX commands we all like...






      share|improve this answer



















      • 4





        It allows, but you shouldn't. The class you are using does not provide them on purpose, because they are obsolete. You really should change to the proper font change commands. Besides, the question does not ask how to get the commands, to your answer misses the point a little.

        – Phelype Oleinik
        Jan 5 at 11:22








      • 2





        see my comment to OP

        – jfbu
        Jan 5 at 11:45






      • 2





        This does not answer the question. The question is whether there are plans to reintegrate the old TeX commands into LaTeX… You could have left a comment below David Carlisle's answer linking to that TUG site.

        – TeXnician
        Jan 5 at 12:27








      • 1





        @PhelypeOleinik I'm not sure if you have received the ping by Martin Scharrer.

        – TeXnician
        Jan 17 at 11:00






      • 1





        @TeXnician: It's not about the quality of the answer. Moderator flags are not for technical incorrect or just "wrong" answers. The "not an answer" is for posts which do not even try to answer the question: spam posts, follow-up questions or me-too posts, etc. There are not intended for quality control. For this the voting system is in place.

        – Martin Scharrer
        Jan 17 at 12:02











      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "85"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f15361%2fwill-two-letter-font-style-commands-bf-it-ever-be-resurrected-in-latex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      42














      The simple answer is no, because the new font commands work better for the reasons in the links you cite.



      The best way to reduce your typing to customize your editor. In my editor (TeXShop on a Mac) I have the command textbf{} bound to Command-B, and emph{} to Command-I. (I generally don't use textit{}) This makes it simple to use the "new" font commands in my source but with drastically reduced typing.



      Most editors should be able to do this sort of shortcut.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 4





        I'd imagine that if we ever succeed in writing LaTeX3 as a stand-alone format, we won't even include bf, etc. There's nothing stopping you doing letbftextbf, though.

        – Joseph Wright
        Apr 9 '11 at 7:37






      • 1





        @Joseph: Shouldn't it be letbfbfseries? After all bf doesn't take an argument.

        – Martin Scharrer
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:03











      • @Martin: From the question, it seemed that the idea was to use bf as a short-hand for textbf, not for bfseries. Hence my suggestion. (I'd say that bf is not a LaTeX command, so it does not have a 'defined' LaTeX syntax. So the OP can do what he likes!)

        – Joseph Wright
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:05






      • 3





        @Joseph: Ok, in his own document he can. As long no one still used bf in some package.

        – Martin Scharrer
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:08


















      42














      The simple answer is no, because the new font commands work better for the reasons in the links you cite.



      The best way to reduce your typing to customize your editor. In my editor (TeXShop on a Mac) I have the command textbf{} bound to Command-B, and emph{} to Command-I. (I generally don't use textit{}) This makes it simple to use the "new" font commands in my source but with drastically reduced typing.



      Most editors should be able to do this sort of shortcut.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 4





        I'd imagine that if we ever succeed in writing LaTeX3 as a stand-alone format, we won't even include bf, etc. There's nothing stopping you doing letbftextbf, though.

        – Joseph Wright
        Apr 9 '11 at 7:37






      • 1





        @Joseph: Shouldn't it be letbfbfseries? After all bf doesn't take an argument.

        – Martin Scharrer
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:03











      • @Martin: From the question, it seemed that the idea was to use bf as a short-hand for textbf, not for bfseries. Hence my suggestion. (I'd say that bf is not a LaTeX command, so it does not have a 'defined' LaTeX syntax. So the OP can do what he likes!)

        – Joseph Wright
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:05






      • 3





        @Joseph: Ok, in his own document he can. As long no one still used bf in some package.

        – Martin Scharrer
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:08
















      42












      42








      42







      The simple answer is no, because the new font commands work better for the reasons in the links you cite.



      The best way to reduce your typing to customize your editor. In my editor (TeXShop on a Mac) I have the command textbf{} bound to Command-B, and emph{} to Command-I. (I generally don't use textit{}) This makes it simple to use the "new" font commands in my source but with drastically reduced typing.



      Most editors should be able to do this sort of shortcut.






      share|improve this answer















      The simple answer is no, because the new font commands work better for the reasons in the links you cite.



      The best way to reduce your typing to customize your editor. In my editor (TeXShop on a Mac) I have the command textbf{} bound to Command-B, and emph{} to Command-I. (I generally don't use textit{}) This makes it simple to use the "new" font commands in my source but with drastically reduced typing.



      Most editors should be able to do this sort of shortcut.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Apr 9 '11 at 13:01

























      answered Apr 9 '11 at 3:40









      Alan MunnAlan Munn

      159k28426701




      159k28426701








      • 4





        I'd imagine that if we ever succeed in writing LaTeX3 as a stand-alone format, we won't even include bf, etc. There's nothing stopping you doing letbftextbf, though.

        – Joseph Wright
        Apr 9 '11 at 7:37






      • 1





        @Joseph: Shouldn't it be letbfbfseries? After all bf doesn't take an argument.

        – Martin Scharrer
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:03











      • @Martin: From the question, it seemed that the idea was to use bf as a short-hand for textbf, not for bfseries. Hence my suggestion. (I'd say that bf is not a LaTeX command, so it does not have a 'defined' LaTeX syntax. So the OP can do what he likes!)

        – Joseph Wright
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:05






      • 3





        @Joseph: Ok, in his own document he can. As long no one still used bf in some package.

        – Martin Scharrer
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:08
















      • 4





        I'd imagine that if we ever succeed in writing LaTeX3 as a stand-alone format, we won't even include bf, etc. There's nothing stopping you doing letbftextbf, though.

        – Joseph Wright
        Apr 9 '11 at 7:37






      • 1





        @Joseph: Shouldn't it be letbfbfseries? After all bf doesn't take an argument.

        – Martin Scharrer
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:03











      • @Martin: From the question, it seemed that the idea was to use bf as a short-hand for textbf, not for bfseries. Hence my suggestion. (I'd say that bf is not a LaTeX command, so it does not have a 'defined' LaTeX syntax. So the OP can do what he likes!)

        – Joseph Wright
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:05






      • 3





        @Joseph: Ok, in his own document he can. As long no one still used bf in some package.

        – Martin Scharrer
        Apr 9 '11 at 10:08










      4




      4





      I'd imagine that if we ever succeed in writing LaTeX3 as a stand-alone format, we won't even include bf, etc. There's nothing stopping you doing letbftextbf, though.

      – Joseph Wright
      Apr 9 '11 at 7:37





      I'd imagine that if we ever succeed in writing LaTeX3 as a stand-alone format, we won't even include bf, etc. There's nothing stopping you doing letbftextbf, though.

      – Joseph Wright
      Apr 9 '11 at 7:37




      1




      1





      @Joseph: Shouldn't it be letbfbfseries? After all bf doesn't take an argument.

      – Martin Scharrer
      Apr 9 '11 at 10:03





      @Joseph: Shouldn't it be letbfbfseries? After all bf doesn't take an argument.

      – Martin Scharrer
      Apr 9 '11 at 10:03













      @Martin: From the question, it seemed that the idea was to use bf as a short-hand for textbf, not for bfseries. Hence my suggestion. (I'd say that bf is not a LaTeX command, so it does not have a 'defined' LaTeX syntax. So the OP can do what he likes!)

      – Joseph Wright
      Apr 9 '11 at 10:05





      @Martin: From the question, it seemed that the idea was to use bf as a short-hand for textbf, not for bfseries. Hence my suggestion. (I'd say that bf is not a LaTeX command, so it does not have a 'defined' LaTeX syntax. So the OP can do what he likes!)

      – Joseph Wright
      Apr 9 '11 at 10:05




      3




      3





      @Joseph: Ok, in his own document he can. As long no one still used bf in some package.

      – Martin Scharrer
      Apr 9 '11 at 10:08







      @Joseph: Ok, in his own document he can. As long no one still used bf in some package.

      – Martin Scharrer
      Apr 9 '11 at 10:08













      30














      To expand on Alan's good answer (and to reiterate his ‘no’) there's another big reason that bf and it are not recommended now: they are short and easy to type, but they do not have semantics. LaTeX attempts to separate content and formatting in its markup, and these font changing commands break such ideals.



      In the rough, commands to type often as part of your document should be short and meaningful; commands to define formatting decisions should be long and descriptive.






      share|improve this answer




























        30














        To expand on Alan's good answer (and to reiterate his ‘no’) there's another big reason that bf and it are not recommended now: they are short and easy to type, but they do not have semantics. LaTeX attempts to separate content and formatting in its markup, and these font changing commands break such ideals.



        In the rough, commands to type often as part of your document should be short and meaningful; commands to define formatting decisions should be long and descriptive.






        share|improve this answer


























          30












          30








          30







          To expand on Alan's good answer (and to reiterate his ‘no’) there's another big reason that bf and it are not recommended now: they are short and easy to type, but they do not have semantics. LaTeX attempts to separate content and formatting in its markup, and these font changing commands break such ideals.



          In the rough, commands to type often as part of your document should be short and meaningful; commands to define formatting decisions should be long and descriptive.






          share|improve this answer













          To expand on Alan's good answer (and to reiterate his ‘no’) there's another big reason that bf and it are not recommended now: they are short and easy to type, but they do not have semantics. LaTeX attempts to separate content and formatting in its markup, and these font changing commands break such ideals.



          In the rough, commands to type often as part of your document should be short and meaningful; commands to define formatting decisions should be long and descriptive.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Apr 9 '11 at 9:39









          Will RobertsonWill Robertson

          58.4k13156202




          58.4k13156202























              27














              Following on the markdown idea mentionned in comments by @Emre, it can be coded in LaTeX. For instance, the code below gets *italics* and **bold** to work (with nesting as well).



              documentclass{article}
              makeatletter
              newcommand{star@out}{%
              star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@inbf@gobble}%
              {bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@init}}
              newcommand{star@inbf}{%
              star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@initbf}}
              newcommand{star@init}{%
              star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@initbf}{egroup}}
              newcommand{star@initbf}{star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{egroup}}
              letstar@currentstar@out

              newcommand{star@ifnext}[2]{%
              def reserved@a {#1}%
              def reserved@b {#2}%
              futurelet @let@token star@ifnext@aux
              }
              begingroup
              catcode`*=13
              @firstofone{endgroup
              newcommand{*}{star@current}
              newcommand{star@ifnext@aux}{%
              ifx @let@token *let reserved@c reserved@a
              else let reserved@c reserved@b
              fi
              reserved@c
              }
              }
              makeatother

              AtBeginDocument{catcode`*=13}


              begin{document}

              Hello, *th**i**s* is a **test, *to see* whether** it works.

              end{document}


              EDIT as per Hendrik Vogt's suggestion. The construction



              begingroup
              catcode`*=13
              @firstofone{endgroup ... }


              ensures that every * within the argument of @firstofone has catcode 13. Namely, a group is started, in which * are active, then @firstofone does nothing but forces TeX to read its argument, converting characters of the input file to tokens (with catcode fixed, except if someone later uses scantokens), and the group then ends with endgroup. The catcode of * is restored, which means that any * which is read later (i.e., not those in the argument of @firstofone) will be of catcode 12 (other). The advantage of this construction over doing catcode`*=13 before and catcode`*=12 after is that the catcode of * keeps whichever value it had, even if it wasn't 12.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                It would be great to see an explanation what @firstofone does here.

                – Hendrik Vogt
                Jun 21 '11 at 15:38











              • See edit. Thanks for the tip.

                – Bruno Le Floch
                Jun 21 '11 at 21:11











              • Thanks for the edit! Now I remember: This trick reminded me of the lccode trick I saw in several of Phillip Goutet's answers, but it's somewhat different.

                – Hendrik Vogt
                Jun 22 '11 at 9:08











              • @Hendrik: it is definitely inspired from the lccode trick (which I think I learnt from Philippe Goutet). It is less powerful, though, since that won't work to change the catcode of a letter (except if that letter appears nowhere in control sequences in the argument).

                – Bruno Le Floch
                Jun 22 '11 at 12:50






              • 4





                Surely it would be easier at this stage to just write in markdown and then use e.g. Pandoc to convert it to LaTeX later…

                – Seamus
                May 26 '12 at 15:38
















              27














              Following on the markdown idea mentionned in comments by @Emre, it can be coded in LaTeX. For instance, the code below gets *italics* and **bold** to work (with nesting as well).



              documentclass{article}
              makeatletter
              newcommand{star@out}{%
              star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@inbf@gobble}%
              {bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@init}}
              newcommand{star@inbf}{%
              star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@initbf}}
              newcommand{star@init}{%
              star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@initbf}{egroup}}
              newcommand{star@initbf}{star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{egroup}}
              letstar@currentstar@out

              newcommand{star@ifnext}[2]{%
              def reserved@a {#1}%
              def reserved@b {#2}%
              futurelet @let@token star@ifnext@aux
              }
              begingroup
              catcode`*=13
              @firstofone{endgroup
              newcommand{*}{star@current}
              newcommand{star@ifnext@aux}{%
              ifx @let@token *let reserved@c reserved@a
              else let reserved@c reserved@b
              fi
              reserved@c
              }
              }
              makeatother

              AtBeginDocument{catcode`*=13}


              begin{document}

              Hello, *th**i**s* is a **test, *to see* whether** it works.

              end{document}


              EDIT as per Hendrik Vogt's suggestion. The construction



              begingroup
              catcode`*=13
              @firstofone{endgroup ... }


              ensures that every * within the argument of @firstofone has catcode 13. Namely, a group is started, in which * are active, then @firstofone does nothing but forces TeX to read its argument, converting characters of the input file to tokens (with catcode fixed, except if someone later uses scantokens), and the group then ends with endgroup. The catcode of * is restored, which means that any * which is read later (i.e., not those in the argument of @firstofone) will be of catcode 12 (other). The advantage of this construction over doing catcode`*=13 before and catcode`*=12 after is that the catcode of * keeps whichever value it had, even if it wasn't 12.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                It would be great to see an explanation what @firstofone does here.

                – Hendrik Vogt
                Jun 21 '11 at 15:38











              • See edit. Thanks for the tip.

                – Bruno Le Floch
                Jun 21 '11 at 21:11











              • Thanks for the edit! Now I remember: This trick reminded me of the lccode trick I saw in several of Phillip Goutet's answers, but it's somewhat different.

                – Hendrik Vogt
                Jun 22 '11 at 9:08











              • @Hendrik: it is definitely inspired from the lccode trick (which I think I learnt from Philippe Goutet). It is less powerful, though, since that won't work to change the catcode of a letter (except if that letter appears nowhere in control sequences in the argument).

                – Bruno Le Floch
                Jun 22 '11 at 12:50






              • 4





                Surely it would be easier at this stage to just write in markdown and then use e.g. Pandoc to convert it to LaTeX later…

                – Seamus
                May 26 '12 at 15:38














              27












              27








              27







              Following on the markdown idea mentionned in comments by @Emre, it can be coded in LaTeX. For instance, the code below gets *italics* and **bold** to work (with nesting as well).



              documentclass{article}
              makeatletter
              newcommand{star@out}{%
              star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@inbf@gobble}%
              {bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@init}}
              newcommand{star@inbf}{%
              star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@initbf}}
              newcommand{star@init}{%
              star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@initbf}{egroup}}
              newcommand{star@initbf}{star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{egroup}}
              letstar@currentstar@out

              newcommand{star@ifnext}[2]{%
              def reserved@a {#1}%
              def reserved@b {#2}%
              futurelet @let@token star@ifnext@aux
              }
              begingroup
              catcode`*=13
              @firstofone{endgroup
              newcommand{*}{star@current}
              newcommand{star@ifnext@aux}{%
              ifx @let@token *let reserved@c reserved@a
              else let reserved@c reserved@b
              fi
              reserved@c
              }
              }
              makeatother

              AtBeginDocument{catcode`*=13}


              begin{document}

              Hello, *th**i**s* is a **test, *to see* whether** it works.

              end{document}


              EDIT as per Hendrik Vogt's suggestion. The construction



              begingroup
              catcode`*=13
              @firstofone{endgroup ... }


              ensures that every * within the argument of @firstofone has catcode 13. Namely, a group is started, in which * are active, then @firstofone does nothing but forces TeX to read its argument, converting characters of the input file to tokens (with catcode fixed, except if someone later uses scantokens), and the group then ends with endgroup. The catcode of * is restored, which means that any * which is read later (i.e., not those in the argument of @firstofone) will be of catcode 12 (other). The advantage of this construction over doing catcode`*=13 before and catcode`*=12 after is that the catcode of * keeps whichever value it had, even if it wasn't 12.






              share|improve this answer















              Following on the markdown idea mentionned in comments by @Emre, it can be coded in LaTeX. For instance, the code below gets *italics* and **bold** to work (with nesting as well).



              documentclass{article}
              makeatletter
              newcommand{star@out}{%
              star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@inbf@gobble}%
              {bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@init}}
              newcommand{star@inbf}{%
              star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{bgroupitshapeletstar@currentstar@initbf}}
              newcommand{star@init}{%
              star@ifnext{bgroupbfseriesletstar@currentstar@initbf}{egroup}}
              newcommand{star@initbf}{star@ifnext{egroup@gobble}{egroup}}
              letstar@currentstar@out

              newcommand{star@ifnext}[2]{%
              def reserved@a {#1}%
              def reserved@b {#2}%
              futurelet @let@token star@ifnext@aux
              }
              begingroup
              catcode`*=13
              @firstofone{endgroup
              newcommand{*}{star@current}
              newcommand{star@ifnext@aux}{%
              ifx @let@token *let reserved@c reserved@a
              else let reserved@c reserved@b
              fi
              reserved@c
              }
              }
              makeatother

              AtBeginDocument{catcode`*=13}


              begin{document}

              Hello, *th**i**s* is a **test, *to see* whether** it works.

              end{document}


              EDIT as per Hendrik Vogt's suggestion. The construction



              begingroup
              catcode`*=13
              @firstofone{endgroup ... }


              ensures that every * within the argument of @firstofone has catcode 13. Namely, a group is started, in which * are active, then @firstofone does nothing but forces TeX to read its argument, converting characters of the input file to tokens (with catcode fixed, except if someone later uses scantokens), and the group then ends with endgroup. The catcode of * is restored, which means that any * which is read later (i.e., not those in the argument of @firstofone) will be of catcode 12 (other). The advantage of this construction over doing catcode`*=13 before and catcode`*=12 after is that the catcode of * keeps whichever value it had, even if it wasn't 12.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jun 21 '11 at 21:09

























              answered Apr 9 '11 at 12:54









              Bruno Le FlochBruno Le Floch

              34k5115211




              34k5115211








              • 1





                It would be great to see an explanation what @firstofone does here.

                – Hendrik Vogt
                Jun 21 '11 at 15:38











              • See edit. Thanks for the tip.

                – Bruno Le Floch
                Jun 21 '11 at 21:11











              • Thanks for the edit! Now I remember: This trick reminded me of the lccode trick I saw in several of Phillip Goutet's answers, but it's somewhat different.

                – Hendrik Vogt
                Jun 22 '11 at 9:08











              • @Hendrik: it is definitely inspired from the lccode trick (which I think I learnt from Philippe Goutet). It is less powerful, though, since that won't work to change the catcode of a letter (except if that letter appears nowhere in control sequences in the argument).

                – Bruno Le Floch
                Jun 22 '11 at 12:50






              • 4





                Surely it would be easier at this stage to just write in markdown and then use e.g. Pandoc to convert it to LaTeX later…

                – Seamus
                May 26 '12 at 15:38














              • 1





                It would be great to see an explanation what @firstofone does here.

                – Hendrik Vogt
                Jun 21 '11 at 15:38











              • See edit. Thanks for the tip.

                – Bruno Le Floch
                Jun 21 '11 at 21:11











              • Thanks for the edit! Now I remember: This trick reminded me of the lccode trick I saw in several of Phillip Goutet's answers, but it's somewhat different.

                – Hendrik Vogt
                Jun 22 '11 at 9:08











              • @Hendrik: it is definitely inspired from the lccode trick (which I think I learnt from Philippe Goutet). It is less powerful, though, since that won't work to change the catcode of a letter (except if that letter appears nowhere in control sequences in the argument).

                – Bruno Le Floch
                Jun 22 '11 at 12:50






              • 4





                Surely it would be easier at this stage to just write in markdown and then use e.g. Pandoc to convert it to LaTeX later…

                – Seamus
                May 26 '12 at 15:38








              1




              1





              It would be great to see an explanation what @firstofone does here.

              – Hendrik Vogt
              Jun 21 '11 at 15:38





              It would be great to see an explanation what @firstofone does here.

              – Hendrik Vogt
              Jun 21 '11 at 15:38













              See edit. Thanks for the tip.

              – Bruno Le Floch
              Jun 21 '11 at 21:11





              See edit. Thanks for the tip.

              – Bruno Le Floch
              Jun 21 '11 at 21:11













              Thanks for the edit! Now I remember: This trick reminded me of the lccode trick I saw in several of Phillip Goutet's answers, but it's somewhat different.

              – Hendrik Vogt
              Jun 22 '11 at 9:08





              Thanks for the edit! Now I remember: This trick reminded me of the lccode trick I saw in several of Phillip Goutet's answers, but it's somewhat different.

              – Hendrik Vogt
              Jun 22 '11 at 9:08













              @Hendrik: it is definitely inspired from the lccode trick (which I think I learnt from Philippe Goutet). It is less powerful, though, since that won't work to change the catcode of a letter (except if that letter appears nowhere in control sequences in the argument).

              – Bruno Le Floch
              Jun 22 '11 at 12:50





              @Hendrik: it is definitely inspired from the lccode trick (which I think I learnt from Philippe Goutet). It is less powerful, though, since that won't work to change the catcode of a letter (except if that letter appears nowhere in control sequences in the argument).

              – Bruno Le Floch
              Jun 22 '11 at 12:50




              4




              4





              Surely it would be easier at this stage to just write in markdown and then use e.g. Pandoc to convert it to LaTeX later…

              – Seamus
              May 26 '12 at 15:38





              Surely it would be easier at this stage to just write in markdown and then use e.g. Pandoc to convert it to LaTeX later…

              – Seamus
              May 26 '12 at 15:38











              6














              Following the answer of Bruno, the wiki package allow a very simplified entry of
              boldface and italics fonts using the Wikipedia syntax:



              documentclass{article}
              usepackage{wiki}
              begin{document}
              wikimarkup
              Write in '''bold''', ''italic'' or '''''both'''''.
              end{document}


              Bold and italics can be nested and even overlapped, so that you can obtain the eqivalent to textit{intertextbf{sec}}textbf{tion}
              with ''inter'''sec''tion'''.






              share|improve this answer




























                6














                Following the answer of Bruno, the wiki package allow a very simplified entry of
                boldface and italics fonts using the Wikipedia syntax:



                documentclass{article}
                usepackage{wiki}
                begin{document}
                wikimarkup
                Write in '''bold''', ''italic'' or '''''both'''''.
                end{document}


                Bold and italics can be nested and even overlapped, so that you can obtain the eqivalent to textit{intertextbf{sec}}textbf{tion}
                with ''inter'''sec''tion'''.






                share|improve this answer


























                  6












                  6








                  6







                  Following the answer of Bruno, the wiki package allow a very simplified entry of
                  boldface and italics fonts using the Wikipedia syntax:



                  documentclass{article}
                  usepackage{wiki}
                  begin{document}
                  wikimarkup
                  Write in '''bold''', ''italic'' or '''''both'''''.
                  end{document}


                  Bold and italics can be nested and even overlapped, so that you can obtain the eqivalent to textit{intertextbf{sec}}textbf{tion}
                  with ''inter'''sec''tion'''.






                  share|improve this answer













                  Following the answer of Bruno, the wiki package allow a very simplified entry of
                  boldface and italics fonts using the Wikipedia syntax:



                  documentclass{article}
                  usepackage{wiki}
                  begin{document}
                  wikimarkup
                  Write in '''bold''', ''italic'' or '''''both'''''.
                  end{document}


                  Bold and italics can be nested and even overlapped, so that you can obtain the eqivalent to textit{intertextbf{sec}}textbf{tion}
                  with ''inter'''sec''tion'''.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Feb 16 '15 at 3:29









                  FranFran

                  51.9k6115176




                  51.9k6115176























                      5














                      First, regarding the use of the PlainTeX-based font switching commands rm, sf, tt, etc in a LaTeX document: Even though the LaTeX2e kernel does not define these commands, they are in fact still available if you use one of the "standard" document classes -- article, report, and book -- or a document class that's based on these three classes. For more on how rm, sf, etc are implemented in the article, report, and book classes see, e.g., this answer to the posting Is there any reason not to use let to redefine a deprecated control sequence to the currently recommended one?



                      Second, here's a solution that uses LuaLaTeX to convert some simple markdown-type text formatting "instructions" into LaTeX code. Specifically, text inside matched pairs of ***, **, and * characters in a line of input is rendered in bold-italics, bold, and italics, respectively.



                      The operation of the Lua function that does the main work can be initiated and terminated via two LaTeX macros named MarkdownOn and MarkdownOff. The Lua function doesn't operate on material contained in verbatim-like environments.



                      enter image description here



                      documentclass{article}

                      %% Lua-side code
                      usepackage{luacode}
                      begin{luacode}
                      in_verbatim = false
                      function markdown ( line )
                      -- don't operate on input if we're in a verbabim-type environment
                      if string.find ( line , "\begin{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
                      in_verbatim = true
                      elseif string.find ( line , "\end{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
                      in_verbatim = false
                      elseif in_verbatim == false then
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*%*(.-)%*%*%*" , "\textbf{\textit{%1}}")
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*(.-)%*%*" , "\textbf{%1}")
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*(.-)%*" , "\textit{%1}" )
                      end
                      return line
                      end
                      end{luacode}

                      %% TeX-side code
                      newcommandMarkdownOn{directlua{luatexbase.add_to_callback(
                      "process_input_buffer", markdown, "markdown" )}}
                      newcommandMarkdownOff{directlua{luatexbase.remove_from_callback(
                      "process_input_buffer", "markdown" )}}

                      setlengthparindent{0pt} % just for this example

                      begin{document}
                      MarkdownOn
                      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned on:

                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***

                      bigskip
                      A line inside a texttt{verbatim} environment:

                      begin{verbatim}
                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
                      end{verbatim}

                      bigskip
                      MarkdownOff
                      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned off:

                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
                      end{document}





                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 1





                        Did the LaTeX kernel ever define those commands? As far as I know, bf, it etc. are TeX font switches and nothing to do with LaTeX.

                        – cfr
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:34











                      • @cfr - It depends on the version of LaTeX: The LaTeX2.09 kernel -- yes, I'll admit to being old enough to having used LaTeX2.09 for real work ... -- did define rm, bf, etc. In contrast, the LaTeX2e kernel does not. However, the "standard" document classes (but not the memoir class) designed for LaTeX2e do provide definitions for rm, bf etc, and the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document.

                        – Mico
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:38













                      • Fair enough. I never used 2.09. Memoir can define them, I think, if you use the relevant class option, but it will still complain with warnings, I believe.

                        – cfr
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:45











                      • @Mico "*the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document. *" is not exactly true. Try in LaTeX Largett AAAshowoutput, you will see it uses OT1/cmtt/m/n/14.4 and the meaning of the latter is select font cmtt12 at 14.4pt, which is not the same as in Plain TeX where tt would also reset the fontsize, as it expands in text mode to the font switch tentt and fonttentt=cmtt10 % typewriter from plain.tex.

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 14:46






                      • 1





                        :) I could not find my quote of you in your answer but I had picked it from your comment, thus the sin is already attenuated as comments are more volatile :)

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 14:53
















                      5














                      First, regarding the use of the PlainTeX-based font switching commands rm, sf, tt, etc in a LaTeX document: Even though the LaTeX2e kernel does not define these commands, they are in fact still available if you use one of the "standard" document classes -- article, report, and book -- or a document class that's based on these three classes. For more on how rm, sf, etc are implemented in the article, report, and book classes see, e.g., this answer to the posting Is there any reason not to use let to redefine a deprecated control sequence to the currently recommended one?



                      Second, here's a solution that uses LuaLaTeX to convert some simple markdown-type text formatting "instructions" into LaTeX code. Specifically, text inside matched pairs of ***, **, and * characters in a line of input is rendered in bold-italics, bold, and italics, respectively.



                      The operation of the Lua function that does the main work can be initiated and terminated via two LaTeX macros named MarkdownOn and MarkdownOff. The Lua function doesn't operate on material contained in verbatim-like environments.



                      enter image description here



                      documentclass{article}

                      %% Lua-side code
                      usepackage{luacode}
                      begin{luacode}
                      in_verbatim = false
                      function markdown ( line )
                      -- don't operate on input if we're in a verbabim-type environment
                      if string.find ( line , "\begin{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
                      in_verbatim = true
                      elseif string.find ( line , "\end{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
                      in_verbatim = false
                      elseif in_verbatim == false then
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*%*(.-)%*%*%*" , "\textbf{\textit{%1}}")
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*(.-)%*%*" , "\textbf{%1}")
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*(.-)%*" , "\textit{%1}" )
                      end
                      return line
                      end
                      end{luacode}

                      %% TeX-side code
                      newcommandMarkdownOn{directlua{luatexbase.add_to_callback(
                      "process_input_buffer", markdown, "markdown" )}}
                      newcommandMarkdownOff{directlua{luatexbase.remove_from_callback(
                      "process_input_buffer", "markdown" )}}

                      setlengthparindent{0pt} % just for this example

                      begin{document}
                      MarkdownOn
                      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned on:

                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***

                      bigskip
                      A line inside a texttt{verbatim} environment:

                      begin{verbatim}
                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
                      end{verbatim}

                      bigskip
                      MarkdownOff
                      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned off:

                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
                      end{document}





                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 1





                        Did the LaTeX kernel ever define those commands? As far as I know, bf, it etc. are TeX font switches and nothing to do with LaTeX.

                        – cfr
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:34











                      • @cfr - It depends on the version of LaTeX: The LaTeX2.09 kernel -- yes, I'll admit to being old enough to having used LaTeX2.09 for real work ... -- did define rm, bf, etc. In contrast, the LaTeX2e kernel does not. However, the "standard" document classes (but not the memoir class) designed for LaTeX2e do provide definitions for rm, bf etc, and the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document.

                        – Mico
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:38













                      • Fair enough. I never used 2.09. Memoir can define them, I think, if you use the relevant class option, but it will still complain with warnings, I believe.

                        – cfr
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:45











                      • @Mico "*the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document. *" is not exactly true. Try in LaTeX Largett AAAshowoutput, you will see it uses OT1/cmtt/m/n/14.4 and the meaning of the latter is select font cmtt12 at 14.4pt, which is not the same as in Plain TeX where tt would also reset the fontsize, as it expands in text mode to the font switch tentt and fonttentt=cmtt10 % typewriter from plain.tex.

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 14:46






                      • 1





                        :) I could not find my quote of you in your answer but I had picked it from your comment, thus the sin is already attenuated as comments are more volatile :)

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 14:53














                      5












                      5








                      5







                      First, regarding the use of the PlainTeX-based font switching commands rm, sf, tt, etc in a LaTeX document: Even though the LaTeX2e kernel does not define these commands, they are in fact still available if you use one of the "standard" document classes -- article, report, and book -- or a document class that's based on these three classes. For more on how rm, sf, etc are implemented in the article, report, and book classes see, e.g., this answer to the posting Is there any reason not to use let to redefine a deprecated control sequence to the currently recommended one?



                      Second, here's a solution that uses LuaLaTeX to convert some simple markdown-type text formatting "instructions" into LaTeX code. Specifically, text inside matched pairs of ***, **, and * characters in a line of input is rendered in bold-italics, bold, and italics, respectively.



                      The operation of the Lua function that does the main work can be initiated and terminated via two LaTeX macros named MarkdownOn and MarkdownOff. The Lua function doesn't operate on material contained in verbatim-like environments.



                      enter image description here



                      documentclass{article}

                      %% Lua-side code
                      usepackage{luacode}
                      begin{luacode}
                      in_verbatim = false
                      function markdown ( line )
                      -- don't operate on input if we're in a verbabim-type environment
                      if string.find ( line , "\begin{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
                      in_verbatim = true
                      elseif string.find ( line , "\end{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
                      in_verbatim = false
                      elseif in_verbatim == false then
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*%*(.-)%*%*%*" , "\textbf{\textit{%1}}")
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*(.-)%*%*" , "\textbf{%1}")
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*(.-)%*" , "\textit{%1}" )
                      end
                      return line
                      end
                      end{luacode}

                      %% TeX-side code
                      newcommandMarkdownOn{directlua{luatexbase.add_to_callback(
                      "process_input_buffer", markdown, "markdown" )}}
                      newcommandMarkdownOff{directlua{luatexbase.remove_from_callback(
                      "process_input_buffer", "markdown" )}}

                      setlengthparindent{0pt} % just for this example

                      begin{document}
                      MarkdownOn
                      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned on:

                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***

                      bigskip
                      A line inside a texttt{verbatim} environment:

                      begin{verbatim}
                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
                      end{verbatim}

                      bigskip
                      MarkdownOff
                      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned off:

                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
                      end{document}





                      share|improve this answer















                      First, regarding the use of the PlainTeX-based font switching commands rm, sf, tt, etc in a LaTeX document: Even though the LaTeX2e kernel does not define these commands, they are in fact still available if you use one of the "standard" document classes -- article, report, and book -- or a document class that's based on these three classes. For more on how rm, sf, etc are implemented in the article, report, and book classes see, e.g., this answer to the posting Is there any reason not to use let to redefine a deprecated control sequence to the currently recommended one?



                      Second, here's a solution that uses LuaLaTeX to convert some simple markdown-type text formatting "instructions" into LaTeX code. Specifically, text inside matched pairs of ***, **, and * characters in a line of input is rendered in bold-italics, bold, and italics, respectively.



                      The operation of the Lua function that does the main work can be initiated and terminated via two LaTeX macros named MarkdownOn and MarkdownOff. The Lua function doesn't operate on material contained in verbatim-like environments.



                      enter image description here



                      documentclass{article}

                      %% Lua-side code
                      usepackage{luacode}
                      begin{luacode}
                      in_verbatim = false
                      function markdown ( line )
                      -- don't operate on input if we're in a verbabim-type environment
                      if string.find ( line , "\begin{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
                      in_verbatim = true
                      elseif string.find ( line , "\end{[vV]erbatim}" ) then
                      in_verbatim = false
                      elseif in_verbatim == false then
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*%*(.-)%*%*%*" , "\textbf{\textit{%1}}")
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*%*(.-)%*%*" , "\textbf{%1}")
                      line = string.gsub ( line, "%*(.-)%*" , "\textit{%1}" )
                      end
                      return line
                      end
                      end{luacode}

                      %% TeX-side code
                      newcommandMarkdownOn{directlua{luatexbase.add_to_callback(
                      "process_input_buffer", markdown, "markdown" )}}
                      newcommandMarkdownOff{directlua{luatexbase.remove_from_callback(
                      "process_input_buffer", "markdown" )}}

                      setlengthparindent{0pt} % just for this example

                      begin{document}
                      MarkdownOn
                      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned on:

                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***

                      bigskip
                      A line inside a texttt{verbatim} environment:

                      begin{verbatim}
                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
                      end{verbatim}

                      bigskip
                      MarkdownOff
                      Lua function texttt{markdown} turned off:

                      *italic*, **bold**, ***bold italic***
                      end{document}






                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:34









                      Community

                      1




                      1










                      answered Aug 20 '16 at 21:17









                      MicoMico

                      275k30373761




                      275k30373761








                      • 1





                        Did the LaTeX kernel ever define those commands? As far as I know, bf, it etc. are TeX font switches and nothing to do with LaTeX.

                        – cfr
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:34











                      • @cfr - It depends on the version of LaTeX: The LaTeX2.09 kernel -- yes, I'll admit to being old enough to having used LaTeX2.09 for real work ... -- did define rm, bf, etc. In contrast, the LaTeX2e kernel does not. However, the "standard" document classes (but not the memoir class) designed for LaTeX2e do provide definitions for rm, bf etc, and the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document.

                        – Mico
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:38













                      • Fair enough. I never used 2.09. Memoir can define them, I think, if you use the relevant class option, but it will still complain with warnings, I believe.

                        – cfr
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:45











                      • @Mico "*the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document. *" is not exactly true. Try in LaTeX Largett AAAshowoutput, you will see it uses OT1/cmtt/m/n/14.4 and the meaning of the latter is select font cmtt12 at 14.4pt, which is not the same as in Plain TeX where tt would also reset the fontsize, as it expands in text mode to the font switch tentt and fonttentt=cmtt10 % typewriter from plain.tex.

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 14:46






                      • 1





                        :) I could not find my quote of you in your answer but I had picked it from your comment, thus the sin is already attenuated as comments are more volatile :)

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 14:53














                      • 1





                        Did the LaTeX kernel ever define those commands? As far as I know, bf, it etc. are TeX font switches and nothing to do with LaTeX.

                        – cfr
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:34











                      • @cfr - It depends on the version of LaTeX: The LaTeX2.09 kernel -- yes, I'll admit to being old enough to having used LaTeX2.09 for real work ... -- did define rm, bf, etc. In contrast, the LaTeX2e kernel does not. However, the "standard" document classes (but not the memoir class) designed for LaTeX2e do provide definitions for rm, bf etc, and the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document.

                        – Mico
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:38













                      • Fair enough. I never used 2.09. Memoir can define them, I think, if you use the relevant class option, but it will still complain with warnings, I believe.

                        – cfr
                        Aug 20 '16 at 21:45











                      • @Mico "*the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document. *" is not exactly true. Try in LaTeX Largett AAAshowoutput, you will see it uses OT1/cmtt/m/n/14.4 and the meaning of the latter is select font cmtt12 at 14.4pt, which is not the same as in Plain TeX where tt would also reset the fontsize, as it expands in text mode to the font switch tentt and fonttentt=cmtt10 % typewriter from plain.tex.

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 14:46






                      • 1





                        :) I could not find my quote of you in your answer but I had picked it from your comment, thus the sin is already attenuated as comments are more volatile :)

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 14:53








                      1




                      1





                      Did the LaTeX kernel ever define those commands? As far as I know, bf, it etc. are TeX font switches and nothing to do with LaTeX.

                      – cfr
                      Aug 20 '16 at 21:34





                      Did the LaTeX kernel ever define those commands? As far as I know, bf, it etc. are TeX font switches and nothing to do with LaTeX.

                      – cfr
                      Aug 20 '16 at 21:34













                      @cfr - It depends on the version of LaTeX: The LaTeX2.09 kernel -- yes, I'll admit to being old enough to having used LaTeX2.09 for real work ... -- did define rm, bf, etc. In contrast, the LaTeX2e kernel does not. However, the "standard" document classes (but not the memoir class) designed for LaTeX2e do provide definitions for rm, bf etc, and the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document.

                      – Mico
                      Aug 20 '16 at 21:38







                      @cfr - It depends on the version of LaTeX: The LaTeX2.09 kernel -- yes, I'll admit to being old enough to having used LaTeX2.09 for real work ... -- did define rm, bf, etc. In contrast, the LaTeX2e kernel does not. However, the "standard" document classes (but not the memoir class) designed for LaTeX2e do provide definitions for rm, bf etc, and the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document.

                      – Mico
                      Aug 20 '16 at 21:38















                      Fair enough. I never used 2.09. Memoir can define them, I think, if you use the relevant class option, but it will still complain with warnings, I believe.

                      – cfr
                      Aug 20 '16 at 21:45





                      Fair enough. I never used 2.09. Memoir can define them, I think, if you use the relevant class option, but it will still complain with warnings, I believe.

                      – cfr
                      Aug 20 '16 at 21:45













                      @Mico "*the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document. *" is not exactly true. Try in LaTeX Largett AAAshowoutput, you will see it uses OT1/cmtt/m/n/14.4 and the meaning of the latter is select font cmtt12 at 14.4pt, which is not the same as in Plain TeX where tt would also reset the fontsize, as it expands in text mode to the font switch tentt and fonttentt=cmtt10 % typewriter from plain.tex.

                      – jfbu
                      Jan 5 at 14:46





                      @Mico "*the definitions are set up to ensure that these font switching macros behave exactly as they would in a Plain-TeX document. *" is not exactly true. Try in LaTeX Largett AAAshowoutput, you will see it uses OT1/cmtt/m/n/14.4 and the meaning of the latter is select font cmtt12 at 14.4pt, which is not the same as in Plain TeX where tt would also reset the fontsize, as it expands in text mode to the font switch tentt and fonttentt=cmtt10 % typewriter from plain.tex.

                      – jfbu
                      Jan 5 at 14:46




                      1




                      1





                      :) I could not find my quote of you in your answer but I had picked it from your comment, thus the sin is already attenuated as comments are more volatile :)

                      – jfbu
                      Jan 5 at 14:53





                      :) I could not find my quote of you in your answer but I had picked it from your comment, thus the sin is already attenuated as comments are more volatile :)

                      – jfbu
                      Jan 5 at 14:53











                      1














                      I had the same problem recently:




                      scrartcl Error: undefined old font command `bf'.




                      After some investigations, I found this on the tug.org web site:




                      makeatletter
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{rm}{normalfontrmfamily}{mathrm}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sf}{normalfontsffamily}{mathsf}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{tt}{normalfontttfamily}{mathtt}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{bf}{normalfontbfseries}{mathbf}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{it}{normalfontitshape}{mathit}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sl}{normalfontslshape}{@nomathsl}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sc}{normalfontscshape}{@nomathsc}
                      makeatother


                      It allows to recover all "old" TeX commands we all like...






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 4





                        It allows, but you shouldn't. The class you are using does not provide them on purpose, because they are obsolete. You really should change to the proper font change commands. Besides, the question does not ask how to get the commands, to your answer misses the point a little.

                        – Phelype Oleinik
                        Jan 5 at 11:22








                      • 2





                        see my comment to OP

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 11:45






                      • 2





                        This does not answer the question. The question is whether there are plans to reintegrate the old TeX commands into LaTeX… You could have left a comment below David Carlisle's answer linking to that TUG site.

                        – TeXnician
                        Jan 5 at 12:27








                      • 1





                        @PhelypeOleinik I'm not sure if you have received the ping by Martin Scharrer.

                        – TeXnician
                        Jan 17 at 11:00






                      • 1





                        @TeXnician: It's not about the quality of the answer. Moderator flags are not for technical incorrect or just "wrong" answers. The "not an answer" is for posts which do not even try to answer the question: spam posts, follow-up questions or me-too posts, etc. There are not intended for quality control. For this the voting system is in place.

                        – Martin Scharrer
                        Jan 17 at 12:02
















                      1














                      I had the same problem recently:




                      scrartcl Error: undefined old font command `bf'.




                      After some investigations, I found this on the tug.org web site:




                      makeatletter
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{rm}{normalfontrmfamily}{mathrm}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sf}{normalfontsffamily}{mathsf}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{tt}{normalfontttfamily}{mathtt}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{bf}{normalfontbfseries}{mathbf}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{it}{normalfontitshape}{mathit}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sl}{normalfontslshape}{@nomathsl}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sc}{normalfontscshape}{@nomathsc}
                      makeatother


                      It allows to recover all "old" TeX commands we all like...






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 4





                        It allows, but you shouldn't. The class you are using does not provide them on purpose, because they are obsolete. You really should change to the proper font change commands. Besides, the question does not ask how to get the commands, to your answer misses the point a little.

                        – Phelype Oleinik
                        Jan 5 at 11:22








                      • 2





                        see my comment to OP

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 11:45






                      • 2





                        This does not answer the question. The question is whether there are plans to reintegrate the old TeX commands into LaTeX… You could have left a comment below David Carlisle's answer linking to that TUG site.

                        – TeXnician
                        Jan 5 at 12:27








                      • 1





                        @PhelypeOleinik I'm not sure if you have received the ping by Martin Scharrer.

                        – TeXnician
                        Jan 17 at 11:00






                      • 1





                        @TeXnician: It's not about the quality of the answer. Moderator flags are not for technical incorrect or just "wrong" answers. The "not an answer" is for posts which do not even try to answer the question: spam posts, follow-up questions or me-too posts, etc. There are not intended for quality control. For this the voting system is in place.

                        – Martin Scharrer
                        Jan 17 at 12:02














                      1












                      1








                      1







                      I had the same problem recently:




                      scrartcl Error: undefined old font command `bf'.




                      After some investigations, I found this on the tug.org web site:




                      makeatletter
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{rm}{normalfontrmfamily}{mathrm}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sf}{normalfontsffamily}{mathsf}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{tt}{normalfontttfamily}{mathtt}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{bf}{normalfontbfseries}{mathbf}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{it}{normalfontitshape}{mathit}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sl}{normalfontslshape}{@nomathsl}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sc}{normalfontscshape}{@nomathsc}
                      makeatother


                      It allows to recover all "old" TeX commands we all like...






                      share|improve this answer













                      I had the same problem recently:




                      scrartcl Error: undefined old font command `bf'.




                      After some investigations, I found this on the tug.org web site:




                      makeatletter
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{rm}{normalfontrmfamily}{mathrm}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sf}{normalfontsffamily}{mathsf}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{tt}{normalfontttfamily}{mathtt}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{bf}{normalfontbfseries}{mathbf}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{it}{normalfontitshape}{mathit}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sl}{normalfontslshape}{@nomathsl}
                      DeclareOldFontCommand{sc}{normalfontscshape}{@nomathsc}
                      makeatother


                      It allows to recover all "old" TeX commands we all like...







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Jan 5 at 11:17









                      lehallelehalle

                      1294




                      1294








                      • 4





                        It allows, but you shouldn't. The class you are using does not provide them on purpose, because they are obsolete. You really should change to the proper font change commands. Besides, the question does not ask how to get the commands, to your answer misses the point a little.

                        – Phelype Oleinik
                        Jan 5 at 11:22








                      • 2





                        see my comment to OP

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 11:45






                      • 2





                        This does not answer the question. The question is whether there are plans to reintegrate the old TeX commands into LaTeX… You could have left a comment below David Carlisle's answer linking to that TUG site.

                        – TeXnician
                        Jan 5 at 12:27








                      • 1





                        @PhelypeOleinik I'm not sure if you have received the ping by Martin Scharrer.

                        – TeXnician
                        Jan 17 at 11:00






                      • 1





                        @TeXnician: It's not about the quality of the answer. Moderator flags are not for technical incorrect or just "wrong" answers. The "not an answer" is for posts which do not even try to answer the question: spam posts, follow-up questions or me-too posts, etc. There are not intended for quality control. For this the voting system is in place.

                        – Martin Scharrer
                        Jan 17 at 12:02














                      • 4





                        It allows, but you shouldn't. The class you are using does not provide them on purpose, because they are obsolete. You really should change to the proper font change commands. Besides, the question does not ask how to get the commands, to your answer misses the point a little.

                        – Phelype Oleinik
                        Jan 5 at 11:22








                      • 2





                        see my comment to OP

                        – jfbu
                        Jan 5 at 11:45






                      • 2





                        This does not answer the question. The question is whether there are plans to reintegrate the old TeX commands into LaTeX… You could have left a comment below David Carlisle's answer linking to that TUG site.

                        – TeXnician
                        Jan 5 at 12:27








                      • 1





                        @PhelypeOleinik I'm not sure if you have received the ping by Martin Scharrer.

                        – TeXnician
                        Jan 17 at 11:00






                      • 1





                        @TeXnician: It's not about the quality of the answer. Moderator flags are not for technical incorrect or just "wrong" answers. The "not an answer" is for posts which do not even try to answer the question: spam posts, follow-up questions or me-too posts, etc. There are not intended for quality control. For this the voting system is in place.

                        – Martin Scharrer
                        Jan 17 at 12:02








                      4




                      4





                      It allows, but you shouldn't. The class you are using does not provide them on purpose, because they are obsolete. You really should change to the proper font change commands. Besides, the question does not ask how to get the commands, to your answer misses the point a little.

                      – Phelype Oleinik
                      Jan 5 at 11:22







                      It allows, but you shouldn't. The class you are using does not provide them on purpose, because they are obsolete. You really should change to the proper font change commands. Besides, the question does not ask how to get the commands, to your answer misses the point a little.

                      – Phelype Oleinik
                      Jan 5 at 11:22






                      2




                      2





                      see my comment to OP

                      – jfbu
                      Jan 5 at 11:45





                      see my comment to OP

                      – jfbu
                      Jan 5 at 11:45




                      2




                      2





                      This does not answer the question. The question is whether there are plans to reintegrate the old TeX commands into LaTeX… You could have left a comment below David Carlisle's answer linking to that TUG site.

                      – TeXnician
                      Jan 5 at 12:27







                      This does not answer the question. The question is whether there are plans to reintegrate the old TeX commands into LaTeX… You could have left a comment below David Carlisle's answer linking to that TUG site.

                      – TeXnician
                      Jan 5 at 12:27






                      1




                      1





                      @PhelypeOleinik I'm not sure if you have received the ping by Martin Scharrer.

                      – TeXnician
                      Jan 17 at 11:00





                      @PhelypeOleinik I'm not sure if you have received the ping by Martin Scharrer.

                      – TeXnician
                      Jan 17 at 11:00




                      1




                      1





                      @TeXnician: It's not about the quality of the answer. Moderator flags are not for technical incorrect or just "wrong" answers. The "not an answer" is for posts which do not even try to answer the question: spam posts, follow-up questions or me-too posts, etc. There are not intended for quality control. For this the voting system is in place.

                      – Martin Scharrer
                      Jan 17 at 12:02





                      @TeXnician: It's not about the quality of the answer. Moderator flags are not for technical incorrect or just "wrong" answers. The "not an answer" is for posts which do not even try to answer the question: spam posts, follow-up questions or me-too posts, etc. There are not intended for quality control. For this the voting system is in place.

                      – Martin Scharrer
                      Jan 17 at 12:02


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f15361%2fwill-two-letter-font-style-commands-bf-it-ever-be-resurrected-in-latex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                      ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                      Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?