mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Philippe Audebaud <address@hidden>]

Thanks a  lot for such a  complete explanation. And, btw,  The solution works
for me ;-)

On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:30:22AM +0200, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:

> Block text (i.e. multiple paragraph text) and tabular text inside macros is
> a little bit tricky.

right..Actually, I was looking for the possibility to put a framed box around
pieces of text.  It still fails, but I'll try to benefit for your hints.

> Since TeXmacs does not yet support "meta-information about DTD's" (it will,
> it will), the fact that a  macro contains block text or tabular text should
> be detectable automatically  from the macro body, both  when defining *and*
> when  expanding  the  macro.  Even  when  the body  consists  of  a  single
> paragraph, you should make TeXmacs  believe that the body is a (potentially
> multiparagraph) block with a single paragraph.
 
> Using scheme notation, the string
> [...]
> is again a block. If you want to *concatenate* block text with normal text,
> then  you should  use the  "surround" primitive:  this  primitive surrounds
> block text on the left and the right with normal text.

So, one should  use 'surround' in such places as  an explicit coercion, until
the material could be automatically detected?

When  I looked  at  Scheme  exportation from  TeXmacs  files, 'document'  and
'concat' should be understood with different meanings? For instance:

(itemize
 (document
   (concat (item) "bla bla 1")                                             (1)
   (concat (item) "bla bla 2")))                                           (2)

expresses the fact that (1) and  (2) are 'block text' material, while each of
them contains 'tabular text'?

> All this  will be  simplified in  the future, but  this depends  on several
> complex changes  which we  plan to  make in the  forthcoming year.   In any
> case, the recognition of block text can not be fully automized, so the user
> will  always need  to  specify  this information  somewhere  (in the  macro
> definition,  application, or  in a  file with  "meta-information  about the
> DTD").

My feeling  is that expecting things  to be automized relies  on an arbitrary
decision about *how* contents will be presented. In most cases, the rendering
will  match the  user expectation;  at  least for  the already/commonly  used
environments, like 'itemize'  here above.  However, in general,  I agree with
you the user  will have to specify how presentation should  be done. 

For  that reason,  my question  is: does  there exist  a primitive  which has
exactly the purpose  of expressing 'that piece of  text' is block/tabular/..?
Does 'surrond'  exists with the very  purpose of capturing this  idea? I very
much  like  the 'with'  wrappers  which behaviour  sounds  better  to me.  Is
something similar possible wrt the kind of questions raised above?

Reading Scheme exports from TeXmacs documents is really interesting and other
questions arise that i'd be pleased to discuss too.

Best,
-- 
Philippe Audebaud.