🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18744@mimsy.UUCP>, chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes...
>In article <18@iisat.UUCP> dymaxion@iisat.UUCP (Dymaxion Research) writes:
>>We are looking for a bold TT TeX font designed to be used with
>>using the Computer Modern font family from the standard TeX
>>distribution.
> 
>The cm \tt font is already quite heavy; I would think than an emboldened
>version would be too black for much use at all.

I agree with this assessment.  I doubt you can produce a visually "bold"
version of tt which will be usable at normal sizes on a 300dpi device.  It
may not even be possible on higher-resolution devices.

>If you need two visually distinct instances of `typewriter' text, it
>would probably be better to create an underlined tt font instead.

The standard TeX distribution contains very nice italic and slanted typewriter
fonts, cmitt and cmsltt.  They are only available at a design size of 10pt,
but you can probably get away with magnifying and reducing them.  In any case,
producing cmitt9 from cmitt10 is a lot easier than producing an underlined
font or a bold one.

A final interesting font in this family is cmvtt, which has the flavor of a
typewriter font but has a variable width.

Also, someone, I think Don Hosek, has produced a cmpica font, which is essen-
tially cmtt re-done to match a standard pica-size typewriter.  It should be
available from the Clarkson archives.

Finally, if you really want to see what a bold tt would look like, try the
\pmb (poor man's bold) macro given on page 386 of the TeXbook.

							-- Jerry