mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden>]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 address@hidden wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 06:25:59PM +0100, Nicolas Girard wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 06:04:01PM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> > > 
> > > I advise you not to use the default format for hacking (and submitting
> > > snippets to the mailing list). It is difficult to read for style
> > > definitions and must be used very carefully to get the desired
> > > meaning.
> > > 
> > Well the default format seems the most natural for me as it is the
> > on i can type in TeXmacs style files
> 
> There have been some discussion on that point, and everyone (even
> Joris) seems to agree that the tm format is better for *documents*
> (data oriented), but the Scheme format is better for *styles* (program
> oriented).

My opinion on this issue is that the preamble mode of TeXmacs is still
at a prehistorical stage. As soon as we will have progressed reorganizing
TeXmacs (but this takes a lot of time, maybe a year), we will develop
more intuitive tools in order to edit style files inside TeXmacs.
In the meantime, I do edit style files using TeXmacs, but you just
have to be a bit careful and tolerant for the present presentation.
For email, it probably best to use the scheme format, because this
avoids possible confusion about whitespace. The TeXmacs format is
mainly meant to be "readable" for normal files. In order to see what
the scheme code looks like, you can export as Scheme.

Best wishes and thanks for your interest, Joris