mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden>]

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