mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Giovanni Piredda <address@hidden>]

Am 09.07.2021 um 16:56 schrieb Frank:
> Hello,
>
> Let me clarify what you want: do you mean that, you want to exclude a 
> chapter / section / subsection from the automatically generated Table 
> of Contents?
>
> Best,
> Frank 


Admitting that this is the thing Richard wants, these definitions seem 
to do it (I did not find a default procedure for this in the TeXmacs 
online help pages)

<assign|prologue|<macro|<principal-section**|<prologue-text>>>>

<assign|principal-section**|<macro|title|<if|<sectional-short-style>|<section**|<arg|title>>|<chapter**|<arg|title>>>>>

<assign|chapter**|<macro|title|<assign|chapter-numbered|false><assign|chapter-prefix|<macro|>><compound|chapter-clean><compound|chapter-header|<arg|title>><compound|chapter-unnumbered-title|<arg|title>>>>

<assign|section**|<macro|title|<assign|section-numbered|false><assign|section-prefix|<macro|>><compound|section-clean><compound|section-header|<arg|title>><compound|section-toc|<arg|title>><compound|section-unnumbered-title|<arg|title>>>>

where I defined chapter** and section** by removing the macros 
<compound|section-toc|<arg|title>> from the definitions of chapter* and 
section*

I hope that it helps.

Said this, I am interested in knowing whether the suggestions for the 
vertical spaces around "enunciation" environments (e.g. theorems) worked.

Giovanni



> On 7/9/21, Richard gomez wrote:
> > Hello TeXmacs users,
> >
> >
> > my publisher asked me if it is possible to remove the ‘prologue’ item 
> > in the table of contents.
> >
> >
> > The structure of my book is :
> >
> > - Prologue
> >
> > - Conventions
> >
> > - Table of contents
> >
> > - Chapter 1, etc.
> >
> >
> > so, in the table of contents we can read :
> >
> >           Prologue  ……………..…5
> >
> >
> > 1) Is there a simple way to remove it ?
> >
> > 2) Do you think that it is a good idea to remove it ?
> >
> > I have a lot of great books with the same thing : the prologue is 
> > before the table and the table mentions it. I don’t think that this 
> > way of doing it is a bad way… I am wondering...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for reading,
> >
> > Richard