mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Alvaro Tejero Cantero <address@hidden>]

>> Yes, but not (x,y), which could be a very long argument that you'd
>> like to copy and paste somewhere else, separately from f.
>
> Yes, that might be an option.

Ok, +1 for it.


> Checking some of my existing documents made me discover several typos,
> which could have been corrected, so if the semantic mode is not
> too much of a burden, then it actually has some immediate advantages.
> Not to speak about CAS interfaces.

I understand now. However for most people /invisible typos/ won't be an issue.

> (more on the semantic mode)

Just to make it clear: I share the overall point of view, I am just
worried that it will become cumbersome to enter some very standard
notations. But your explanations address my concerns!

> The number of Ctrl-Spaces will probably not increase.
> In the formula "a+b+c+d", I was thinking of outward selecting
> "a+b-c+d" right after, say "b" (anyway, the decision between "a+b"
> and "b-c" would not be clear). On the other hand, you should be
> able to select "a+b", "b-c", "a+b-c", "b-c+d" and "a+b-c+d"
> using the mouse or S-left, S-right (but not "c+d").

Above you mention that selecting x*y in 1/x*y is not selectable by
default - do you mean that semantic mode has to be deactivated for
that to work? because it is not possible now even with S-Left and
S-Right. In the documentation it doesn't speak about how to create the
invisible parentheses. (btw. it may become instructive to at some
point have an option to have all invisible characters displayed for
example in light grey, the way some word processors allow showing
carriage returns).
>> My preferred solution to this it to exit innermost environment with
>> the Enter key.
>
> That might indeed be a good idea inside mathematical formulas.
> And if we want to leave on the left? S-enter?

Could be. I am not trained to leave on the left, because most of the
time the transition is to the right, but it is probably useful. But I
can certify that exit with enter is an absolute bliss.

>> This is useful by itself and could also make comfortable enough to use
>> invisible delimiters for operators such as sin, <mathd>...
>
> But only intelligible for power users, I fear.

You're probably right.

>> On sub/superscripts:
>>
>> > At the very start of TeXmacs, I experimented
>> > markup for subscripts and superscripts with their base and found it
>> > less natural than the current solution.
>>
>> I don't understand what was the difference. But they are fine now,
>> it's only entering multiple indexes that is annoyingly long.
>
> Maybe I should add structured-up and structured-down inside subscripts?

How would this help with the indexes as in a_{ijk}? But yes, I am for
all sorts of structured navigation. I guess up goes to subscript owner
and down to further (possible) scripts?

>> ',,' indeed is an excellent compromise.
>
> We might also use A-, by the way (or C-, depending on the OS).

I tend to prefer ,,  ,it seems faster to me than A- or C-

>> RR for <bbb-R>
>
> This is actually the default behaviour; all bbb-symbols can be entered that 
> way.

<blush>

Thanks for the explanations, it helps do more directed testing,

Álvaro.