mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Frank <address@hidden>]

After a second thought, I come to the conclusion that it might be improper to 
use the folding-unfolding to encapsulate uncompiled figure codes (which might 
contain all graph plugin "executable" usages) if you want to fold-unfold in 
an animation.

So I would like to suggest splitting graph inclusions related usages of graph 
plugin to an independent abstraction, which should be conceptually distinct 
from fold-unfold animations.

Best,
Frank

于 November 24, 2020 9:04:01 PM UTC, Frank <address@hidden> 写到:
>Hi,
>
>I think that it might be better to have some control on these folding /
>unfolding when I press F10/F11 or exporting to PDFs. Deleting the
>enclosing 'script-output' tag will have a side-effect that afterwards I
>can no longer modify it. So in some sense I need to keep a "meta source
>code" and I delete these script-output to get the source code, which
>does not seem to be quite satisfactory.
>
>I will have a try to see the option of scheme code. I guess that it
>should be something like applying cdr.
>
>Best wishes,
>Frank
>
>On 11/24/20, TeXmacs wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:16:20PM +0100, Frank wrote:
>>> Now I understand why that happens: \script-output are interpreted as
>foldings. After having converted to pdf, it generates two pages, one
>"unfolded" (with the source code) and the other "folded" (with
>"Busy...").
>>>
>>> A temporary solution is to replace all these \script-output by the
>code of the image. However, it would require a lot of labor and does
>not seem to be satisfactory. Any better solution?
>> 
>> No, the folding-unfolding is a desirable feature in the majority of
>cases.
>> You can indeed remove the enclosing 'script-output' tag for all
>instances to
>> obtain what you want.  If you are familiar with Scheme, then you can
>write
>> a small routine that will do precisely that for you.
>> 
>> Best wishes, --Joris
>> 

-- 
使用 K-9 Mail 发送自我的Android设备。