mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Henri Lesourd <address@hidden>]

Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

> So, for now:
>
> #16786 does not block development, but makes some documents using my
>        plug-in look a bit ugly.
>
>  
I just had a look at your example document, when you say "TeXmacs indents
this for no good reason" in the context of Lemma 1, I don't understand
where is the superfluous indenting (it seems natural to me that because
of the surrounding fold, you have a bullet, plus some indenting, and then
the lemma : but the amount of indenting appears to be exactly the same as
the one I see in the fold above (i.e. the one containing "dd" and 
"dfdfdfdf")).

Where is the misunderstanding ? (you can have a look in the output of my
own TeXmacs that I see myself, cf. pdf document attached to this email).

I also noticed that when I change the style of the document, the indenting
of the folds can change anyway... To put this problem completely under
control, you would need to identify the TeXmacs global variables responsible
for these changes, or if it is not possible, rewrite a special version of
the fold which is style insensitive.


> #16086: I can work around it, by taking care of always writing the
>         whole contents of the scheme block before opening a new
>          block, but this makes the other side (the process that talks
>          to TeXmacs) more complex.
>
>  
If the function calls you send to your plugin are always synchronous,
you could completely avoid relying on the TeXmacs socket interface
by means of directly writing Scheme s-expressions to a Scheme socket.

This way, your code would probably become much simpler, and you
would avoid depending on the possibly buggy (or possibly unfit
for your purpose) TeXmacs escaping of the data you send.

Another solution would perhaps be to use the raw << data:"..." >>
encoding instead of << scheme:{s-expression} >>.

Attachment: tmupi.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document