Similarly, U+03B5 ↦ \varepsilon ε, U+03F0 ↦ \varkappa ϰ, U+03C2 ↦ \varsigma ς, U+03C6 ↦ \varphi φ. KaTeX supports all of them.

I would include \digamma, but there is an issue to resolve first.

The AMS (and KaTeX) function \digamma looks like U+03DC, capital letter Ϝ. But the unicode-math and Teubner packages map \digamma to U+03DD, small letter ϝ. It is \Digamma that they map to U+03DC, capital letter Ϝ.

It’s a problem. The unicode-math function names are consistent with the naming convention for other Greek letters. But AMS is more popular. I don’t know the best way to resolve the collision.

@ronkok your comment made me realize that I hadn't updated the token regex. I have added the glyphs for \varepsilon, \varsigma, and \varphi. I will add \varkappa and the AMS version of \digamma. I don't believe any of our fonts includes a glyph for the small letter ϝ.

@ronkok Good catch about U+03F0 \varkappa, but the other three (U+03B5, U+03C2,
U+03C6) are handled by [\u03B1-\u03C9], right? (The ε, ς, and φ characters are the "normal" characters output by pressing e, w (for "word-final sigma"), or f (respectively) on a Greek keyboard.) Do they need any additional special casing?

After thinking of about the \digamma issue, I'm going to punt on it for now because at some point in the future we probably want to support more of the unicode-math package and I'd like to avoid changing the behavior.

@wchargin, you are correct about U+03B5, U+03C2, and U+03C6. They do not require any special casing. My bad.

@kevinbarabash, Good call. It's okay to go slow. I don't hear the world calling out for a expedited decision on \digamma.

@wchargin I misread my own regex. This looks like it's good to go.

Haha, okay :) The regex seems good to me except for the bizarre case of U+03A2, which is not a valid Unicode character for some reason. This seemed weird to me, but I confirmed it in my official Unicode Consortium book and it is correct. For reference, here's the full Greek table:

(The next page, which has all the codepoints' official names and decompositions, lists it as "reserved.")

Other than that, the characters that match the regex are ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨαβγδεζηθικλμνξοπρςστυφχψ, which seems fine to me.

# Python 3
''.join(chr(x) for x in list(range(0x0391, 0x03A9)) + list(range(0x03B1, 0x03C9)))

(I'm definitely not qualified to review the actual KaTeX aspect of it though, sorry 😕 )

If it's reserved it's probably going to be hard for a person to type it in. There are some characters (capitals letters) which we don't have glyphs for. I'll see what happens when they're typed in and report back.

It throws on all of the Greek glyphs that we don't have, e.g. Α, Β, Ε, etc. which I think is acceptable.

Yeah, that's a tricky one. It always bothered me that TeX has no \Alpha command (whatever happened to semantics matter?). I mean, the two obvious choices that I see are disallow entering Α (U+0391 GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA) or alias it to A (U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A). If we're ever planning to add support for user-defined fonts, for which the two glyphs could be distinct, that might make a difference.

In the spirit of forward-compatibility, your decision to disallow them for now sounds good to me; you can always add them later, but they'd be harder to remove. @xymostech ?

Should \mathbf{Ω} render the same as \mathbf{\Omega}? Would a test of that be worthwhile?

@ronkok definitely worth a test. I'll see to it Monday.

@kevinbarabash The code of this looks good! Do you want to write the test that @ronkok suggested? Also, what happens when you put these in \text{}?

@xymostech will do. I totally forgot about that test. Thanks for reminding me.

@xymostech I finally got around to testing \text{} and it blew up b/c I hadn't defined the symbols for text mode. I've updated the diff to include text mode versions of all of these symbols.

@ronkok sorry for the delay. I just tested \mathbf{Ω}\mathbf{\Omega} and they render the same. I'm going to update the screenshot test to include this.

Just bumped into this older PR. Looks like everything was good to go, and just needs a rebase and review?

I'll rebase this this evening.

I did more reading of the various unicode PRs. I'm a little confused about what the latest/best approach is, but it does make me wonder whether this one will be necessary... Intuitively, defineSymbol ought to define both the unicode and \command version of a symbol. But the other work shows that the font's notion of which unicode symbol it is is not always what we want.

Perhaps we should add another option argument to defineSymbol that gives the unicode character that should be recognized as this one? And then go through symbols by hand? Greek could still be the initial testing ground.

It looks like there's an error with the screenshot. Can you regenerate?