On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:29:52AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> This is not the problem I had in mind. Assume there is a macros \foo
> which takes an argument and which for some reason is not known to
> mathed. When I type \foo{, I'd like to have the red braces. But
> obviously, if I type, say, \sqrt{, I do not expect to have the braces,
> since they are already provided by mathed.
I have a strong feeling that mathed will get more aware of macro arguments
during the 1.3 series and I think we might 'fix' this then. Consider filing
a feature request on bugzilla.
> Anyway, I thought about a different thing this morning (for later :).
> In mathed you have some macros which only have a scope of one
> character (like font changes), while most of them create a box, from
> which you have to exit later. The (La)TeX behaviour is different: by
> default, arguments are only one token, unless you add explicit braces
> (add a box, in mathed terms). Why couldn't mathed have the same
> behaviour? This makes simple formulas much easier to enter (a_i+b_i
> vs. a_i<space>+b_i<space>) and would probably be intuitive to use. If
> you want to have a longer subscript you can add a box, for example
> with a lfun bound to (surprise!) the key {.
>
> Does it make sense?
Yes, but I don't think I want implement this. We would need a 'stateful
cursor' again to distiguish between '{' pressed or not, and editing
probably would get a mess again. How should editing work when you want to
change a_i to a_{ij}?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
