mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

Text archives Help


Re: [TeXmacs] Help on action


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Alvaro Tejero Cantero <address@hidden>
  • To: address@hidden
  • Cc: address@hidden
  • Subject: Re: [TeXmacs] Help on action
  • Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:12:46 +0100
  • Organization: Ludwig-Maximilian Universität

Hi

Thanks Henri for the detailed (Cartesian reasoning) tutorial!

In fact, I almost get what I want now (after editing with emacs the source code for the style file).

But there are two subtle behaviours (bugs?) that still puzzle me:

1) If I use \bcite to invoke my macro and, by mistake, press return after typing some text as argument, the \bcite macro BREAKS FOREVER!!!
Other similar macros go on working, but \bcite complains

<unnamed port>:1:67: In procedure substring in expression (substring s 7 ...):
<unnamed port>:1:67: Argument 2 out of range: 7

which is the same error I've been having all the time.

More precisely, all instances of \bcite invocation created later than the one with "return" in it are broken, but all the previous remain working.


2) I don't really know how to make TeXmacs re-read my style file. Even after restarting it wants to use a previous version of the package file. It's incredible: it doesn't want anymore my macro file, it sticks to a hand-edited one, but not quite the _current one_. It's like if it cached the file somewhat randomly.

When I load the package file back in TeXmacs, it refuses to save (no changes). If I make a tiny change in the package, then it accepts saving, and all changes are taken into account in my files.



If this is not enough to discourage a would-be package writer, the Remove package option from the menu

(which I wanted to use to refresh the package file TeXmacs is using accordingly to the contents of the one in the disk)

causes a segfault for a rather complex document I'm writing (but it works for small test files.


----Against pretty printing the source of TeXmacs styles (documents?)

Wouldn't it better to turn off the TeXmacs source pretty-printing mechanism (since it breaks more than it helps)?

It seems reasonable at least for style files, because of the new 'nice graphical' editing mode.

Perhaps the pretty printing could be heuristically applied to only a few tags. Anyway, is there anybody editing TeXmacs files by hand?, is there any reason to keep source pretty-printing?

--------


'Alvaro.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of page