- From: Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden>
- To: address@hidden
- Subject: Re: [TeXmacs] Re: Bugs?
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:03:26 +0100
Hi Alvaro,
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 08:32:48AM +0100, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote:
>
> 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.
The typos captured by the semantic modes are not necessarily invisible,
even though invisible typos are among the most frequent ones.
>
> 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.
Yes, you should either 1) deactivate it, 2) place x*y inside invisible
brackets right from the start. Indeed, semantically speaking,
x*y is *not* a valid subexpression of 1/x*y (similarly,
/x is not a valid subexpression of 1/x*y).
>
In the documentation it doesn't speak about how to create the
>
invisible parentheses.
Yes, this should be detailed.
>
(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).
Agreed.
>
> 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
That would be required in order to treat subscripts and superscripts
using the same system.
>
>> > 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?
I misunderstood you; I was thinking about adding a superscript
after typing a subscript.
>
>> ',,' 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-
It might actually even be better to use "space" as a toggle
to make the adjacent character invisible (whenever applicable).
Best wishes, --Joris
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.