mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Sam Liddicott <address@hidden>]

Wow... it's impossible to have a bare <eqnarray|...> tag - it enforces the table contents. How unexpected is that? I didn't know you could enforce such things, I'll have to see how that is done!

I also seem to find that it is impossible to compose a table; or these macros ought to work:

<assign|ea*|<xmacro|args|<eqnarray*|<tformat|<map-args|e-row|table|args>>>>>

<assign|e-row|<macro|r|<row|<cell|[>|<cell|<arg|r>>|<cell|]>>>>

<ea*|2+x=3|24=99|3+999=2y|s+9=12>

(Of course I was planning to modify e-row to split on =)

In trying this I see that the table is rendering the args but with no reference to the macro e-row at all. I'm not quite sure what is going on.

Sam

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Sam Liddicott <address@hidden> wrote:

I'm talking rubbish. I just noticed that equation array contains an embedded table. Ugh.

So my technique would not work but I also get frustrated often when I see layout markup embedded in the document tree like this. (table of contents too).

Surely the equation array should be an xargs macro where each arg is an equation.

Ah well... I'll see if I can do one that is.

Sam

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Sam Liddicott <address@hidden> wrote:

I did a similar macro for verbatim so that an multiline verbatim chunk used a smaller font than an inline verbatim fragment

Thus was so inline verbatim font matched the text font but multiline verbatim chunks could fit 80 characters to the line and no Interline spacing.

The technique used to divert the macro used when passed a document as an argument instead of a multiline may be helpful.

tamiz.tiddlyspace.com/bags/tamiz_public/tiddlers/how%20to%20get%20reasonable%20block%20verbatim%3F

Warning... once you press enter inside the argument to make a document tag its hard to go back, even if there is only one line.

In my case that was incision I wanted to be able to have a small single line verbatim.

In your case you would probably also count the child tags if get-label returned document so that single line documents don't use the array.

Sam

On Apr 24, 2012 8:25 AM, "Peter Rapčan" <address@hidden> wrote:

Dear Sam,

I do not care about line wrapping, since it does not do what one expects anyway. An example

auto line wrapping does:

x = y * (a + very + l + o + o + o + o

+ o + n + g + formula)

but what physicists conventionally do by hand

x = y * (a + very + l + o + o + o + o

      + o + n + g + formula)

and, this I do be an equations array. It would be very convenient to: Simply start an equation (no choice between types of equations). Pressing enter after "l + o + o + o + o" would simply make a new equation(-array) line and put anything at the right of the cursor in this new line aligned as displayed in my example (aligning differently if the + was =). 

After watching the Joris's talk on TeXmacs programming, I might try to program this myself :-). My point however is: do we at all need the equation environment? As I do the wrapping by hand anyway, I don't. Only if the one-line *equation array* (that fits in the line) was rendered exactly as an *equation*... there would be no need to switch between two different equation environments...

Cheers,

Peter.

On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:10 AM, Sam Liddicott wrote:

Its hard to tell if you are talking about equation arrays with one equation or an equation that doesn't line-wrap and so takes only one line.

I can do you an environment that's uses equation if it has one entry and equation array if it has more than one.

But it won't take into account line wrapping.

Sam

On Apr 23, 2012 10:44 PM, "Peter Rapčan" <address@hidden> wrote:

Hello list,

I have a simple question:

Is there any reason not to use only one equation environment - the equation array?

As I see it, the only difference between an equation and a one-line equation array is the spacing around the "prominent" binary relation (the one according to which alignment happens in eq. array with more lines). I Imagine it would be possible to do the following:
1. IF there was only one line in an equation array, THEN the rendering would be the same as if equation had been used.
2. ELSE use the standard equation-array rendering.

Am I missing something? I find it inconvenient to have two different eq. environments. When writing an equation, I seldom know whether it will end up being a one-line eq., or not (will it fit one line or not?). Therefore, I mostly choose the eq. array environment, which is not spaced nicely if my equation ends up fitting just one line (with more binary relations).

Any thought on this?

Cheers,
Peter.