mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Giovanni Piredda <address@hidden>]

It does seem that there is something not ok in the interaction between 
the macro I wrote and the typesetter. Sometimes it is even able to 
modify the appearance of text *preceding* it, I have figured out how to 
reproduce the behaviour (it depends on how one moves the cursor, which 
as far as I see should not influence the typesetting process); I wonder 
if I should submit a bug report: please let me know.

G.

On 17.11.20 19:25, Giovanni Piredda wrote:
> I post this here because I think that while being about Scheme in 
> TeXmacs is still of general interest. I have found a way of 
> circumventing both issues (which may be ok, in case I will ask about 
> this in another post) but I am curious to know the reason of the 
> behaviours I observe.
>
> First issue.
>
> I have defined a Scheme function with the following:
>
> (tm-define (unitSpacer) ; default, will be used in regular text
>        `(hspace "0.5spc"))
> (tm-define (unitSpacer)
>        (:require (in-math?))
>        "*")
>
> As far as I understand, the first definition is the default and it is 
> overridden by the second when I am in math.
>
> In my tests, this happens only in open documents. At the first opening 
> of a document, only the first definition is used. Does anyone have a 
> hint on what is happening? Developers ;-) ?
>
> ===
>
> Second issue.
>
> In math mode, the program I wrote outputs groups of letters, each 
> wrapped in a <with|math-font-shape|right primitive, and interleaved 
> with the character "*".
>
> Example of output, copied from the terminal using (display ...)
>
> <tree 2 <with|math-font-shape|right|kg>*<with|math-font-shape|right|m>>
>
> I call this from a TeXmacs macro in math mode and I get a typeset 
> output where the asterisk appears as such (while I would like it to be 
> interpreted as an implicit multiplication)
>
> If I copy the output from the terminal, strip the outermost <tree 
> primitive and place it inside a math primitive (opening the .tm file 
> with a text editor) the asterisks do not appear (as I thought they 
> shouldn't).
>
> Again, suggestions?