mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Andreas Klöckner <address@hidden>]

On Mittwoch 09 November 2005 10:09, Henri Lesourd wrote:
> Currently, the idea is to add a feature that you could use to
> set the visual grid on and off. If we decide to do more (i.e.,
> the edit grid is invisible in the Postscript output), then it
> raises the question of what to do in the opposite cases, when
> you want the grid to be printed.
>
> As far as interface is concerned, a boolean toggle would
> probably be a good approach (something like "Visual grid
> appears on printout [Y/N]").

That would suit my need.

> >- Graphics box sizing
> >
> >When I draw something in Xfig, the resulting .eps automatically
> > shrink-wraps around what I have drawn. Thus, centering this graphics box
> > is really easy.
>
> I don't understand what you mean : if the resulting .eps automatically
> shrink wraps, there is no need (and no way) to center the graphics at
> all...

I meant exactly centering the graphics on the page within TeXmacs. Sorry for 
being unclear. Even more precisely: If the graphics box shrink-wraps 
automatically, then centering that box will also exactly center the graphics. 
Right now, I usually count the squares and enter a half-centimeter-accurate 
estimate into the width and height fields.

> >Ideally, I would like the built-in graphics mode to emulate that behavior,
> > at least as an option. I know that I can set the size of the graphics box
> > by hand and translate the content around inside, but I find that quite
> > cumbersome.
>
> I don't see clearly what you mean, here.
>
> One thing I did some time ago was to adjust the size of the page
> in order to output a document that contains exactly the graphics,
> thus the document is in fact an image (and then this image was
> used in a LaTeX document). Do you mean something like this ?

That would be one part of it: If I could avoid manually shrinking the 
graphics 
box to match my drawing, that would already help. If that could be done 
automatically in some way as soon as I stop editing the drawing, then that 
would be even better (but it raises a few UI questions, such as what to do if 
the drawing is left empty).

>> [snip] Interface blurb

> This comment has been done already. So perhaps should
> we think about providing a double-sided editing interface,
> the current one, and another one that would be closer to
> the usual standard, then.

Having two different drawing capture standards sounds like it would be even 
more confusing for the casual user.

> But is it that you have trouble using it because you
> are very much used to the usual standard, or it is
> because there are design problems with this kind of
> interface (i.e., things difficult to do).

It's a bit of both. I find myself clicking the wrong buttons all the time, 
just because of what I'm used to. And then, on top of that, moving, resizing 
and rotating the way it's usually done is just much quicker since it doesn't 
require me to move my mouse to the toolbar and back. Btw, is there a way to 
scale anisotropically (i.e. different scale factor in x and y?)

> >- Default graph settings
> >
> >I would like to have a place where I can set a few defaults that I will
> > find in any drawing that I start, pertaining to grid size, properties and
> > such.
>
> To be looked at, then. In effect, having some kind of "default context"
> available in the interface for new stuff is an interesting feature.
> Indeed, it could appear to be more general need than something that
> is only related to graphics.

Sure, but graphics is the only place where I've actually really missed it.

- Copying and pasting between drawings

Copying one piece of one drawing and pasting it into another doesn't appear 
to 
work for me. Is that supposed to be this way?

Andreas

Attachment: pgpDRERav_BFX.pgp
Description: PGP signature