Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Hi, My experience was similar. texmacs was so slow as to being unusable. Perhaps this is not a problem for Quake III machines :) Juha On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Niklas Werner wrote: Hi All! Sorry to be a bit offtopic. (This is not meant to start a new WYSIWYM vs. WYSIWYG debate) Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) seems to be the attempt to bring Latex to WYSIWYG, though it doesn't really work for me ;-(. it's incredibly slow, because it tries to display the postscript right away. Have fun* Niklas
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import
apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups
start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared.
Who cares about proprietary Maple ;)
What would be nice to have is importing of LaTeX generated by
Maxima. Unfortunately it just doesn't work. No error messages, but the
math will have very little WYSIWYM on the screen and LaTeX won't process
the result. Here's small example:
\documentclass[english]{article}
\begin{document}
$${{1}\over{\sqrt{3}}}\leqno{\tt (D1)}$$
\end{document}
(Maxima generates only the math line, header and tail was inserted by me).
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:07:45 +0300 (EEST)
From: Tuukka Toivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Allan Rae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: LyX Users [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import
apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups
start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared.
Who cares about proprietary Maple ;)
What would be nice to have is importing of LaTeX generated by
Maxima. Unfortunately it just doesn't work. No error messages, but the
math will have very little WYSIWYM on the screen and LaTeX won't process
the result. Here's small example:
\documentclass[english]{article}
\begin{document}
$${{1}\over{\sqrt{3}}}\leqno{\tt (D1)}$$
\end{document}
(Maxima generates only the math line, header and tail was inserted by me).
This is plain TeX, you get a right dvi output in LyX if you change
the $$ in $ and wipe out the \leqno{\tt (D1)} (which doesn't make
sense anyway if you want to reference equations at your will).
This is easy to automate.
You would get no ERT at all in LyX if reLyX was able to convert
{1}\over{\sqrt{3}} as \frac{1}{sqrt{3}}: this is more difficult...
Is it a weakness of reLyX (i.e. no implementation of math TeX constructs
in mathed ?).
--
Jean-Pierre
Re[2]: [OT] TeXmacs?
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:19:05 +0200 (CEST) wrote Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems.
[...]
I was thinking about developing 4 for some time but a number of
circumstances have halted the project. Please mail me if you have some
valuable insight into a nice way of doing it.
Well, do you mean something like starting LyX, typing
'C-N C-M \mint a down b down x down x down F10 m' // [1]
and getting
'\frac{1}{2} a x^2 + \frac{1}{2} b x^2'
appended? Seems to work over here ;-)
So, how do you do it? ;-)
I'd like to see LyX as a GUI for some open Algebra System (something like
Scientific workplace?) i.e. not so much for changing formulars on the fly
but as a kind of very pretty printing notebook. (Of course with the option
to integrate the results in a normal LyX document.)
I wonder whether the Lyxpipes are sufficient to achieve this or whether some
changes whithin LyX are required.
There is a promising open Computer Algebra System on the net called YACAS
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~apinkus/) (I haven't tried yet) also MuPad
(http://www.mupad.de/) could be interesting (although not open source) It
allowes to specify the output format (and has already a latex output
library (although this did not work for me)) so it might be convinced to send
something interpretable to the Lyxpipe.
Guenter
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
You would get no ERT at all in LyX if reLyX was able to convert
{1}\over{\sqrt{3}} as \frac{1}{sqrt{3}}: this is more difficult...
Is it a weakness of reLyX (i.e. no implementation of math TeX constructs
in mathed ?).
That's not a job for reLyX, but for the mathed parser...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: [OT] TeXmacs?
So, how do you do it? ;-) Works only with latest CVS and the patch I send yesterday to lyx-devel and only for a very limited set of operations. Note that this combination is not to be used for serious work. Latest recommended version for serious work involving math is CVS from early February, but using one of 1.1.6fixes or even 1.1.5 should be even better. I wonder whether the Lyxpipes are sufficient to achieve this or whether some changes whithin LyX are required. It would probably work with LyXpipes, but that's not what has been used. There is a promising open Computer Algebra System on the net called YACAS (http://www.xs4all.nl/~apinkus/) (I haven't tried yet) also MuPad (http://www.mupad.de/) could be interesting (although not open source) It allowes to specify the output format (and has already a latex output library (although this did not work for me)) so it might be convinced to send something interpretable to the Lyxpipe. All that is needed is either LaTeX or something easily convertable to LaTeX. So MuPAD should be fine in the end. I have never tried YACAS, though. Andre' -- André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Stefano Ghirlanda wrote: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wereb't there some attempts to rewrite NeXT environment for X as a free soft (GNUStep)? As I remember, they tried to create some kind of Display PostScript based on the Ghostscript (there are some remaints in the ghostscript distribution until now -- look through your $GS_LIB). Does anybody have any idea, whether it is alive or definitively dead? It's alive on www.gnustep.org And tries the same as MacOsX that uses pdf for screen display of virtually everything, ie Putting UN*X on the Easy-to-use OO-Desktop
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import
apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups
start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared.
Who cares about proprietary Maple ;)
Well, I care, since that's what I am using.
The Maple specific code is currently 57 lines and can be
removed/changed/whatever anytime without recompilation.
What would be nice to have is importing of LaTeX generated by Maxima.
Unfortunately it just doesn't work. No error messages, but the math
will have very little WYSIWYM on the screen and LaTeX won't process the
result. Here's small example:
\documentclass[english]{article} \begin{document}
$${{1}\over{\sqrt{3}}}\leqno{\tt (D1)}$$ \end{document}
\over is evil since it is not properly read by the parser. Well, the parser
needs a rewrite anyway, but apart from that this Maxima input does not
sound too hard to do.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lyx for OSX (was [OT] TeXmacs?)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Jacobo Myesrton wrote: I think that LyX could look very good ported to MacOSX. The port should not be very difficult. It is a matter of rewriting the GUI in Cocoa. ...not be very difficult ;-) Complexity of porting medium-to-low, learning curve of Cocoa unknown. Is somebody working on this? Not at the moment, although, I have been seriously considering applying for an Apple student development place -- free G4 for a year and a bunch of other stuff. Gotta get some more work done on my thesis first though :( Are you volunteering? Allan. (ARRae)
Lyx for OSX (was [OT] TeXmacs?)
I think that LyX could look very good ported to MacOSX. The port should not be very difficult. It is a matter of rewriting the GUI in Cocoa. Is somebody working on this?
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
- Original Message - From: "Matej Cepl" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "LyX disc. list" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 9:12 AM Subject: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?) On ter 24 duben 2001 21:51 you wrote: 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of "should we, yet?" YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. Matej We need some lawyers in the developers team eh? ;-) R
Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
Matej Cepl writes: YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. I wouldn't know how to implement it, but I'll second the request. In addition to a transpose-characters (C-t) function, LyX could use a transpose-words (M-t) function; improved implementations of word-capitalize, word-lowcase, and word-upcase functions; and sentence-sensitive commands like delete-to-end-of-sentence (M-d), go-to-end-of-sentence (M-e) and go-to-beginning-of-sentence (M-a). For the eternal wish-list ... -- Ronald Florence http://members.home.net/18james
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
From: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LyX disc. list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:12:56 -0400 On úterý 24 duben 2001 21:51 you wrote: 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of should we, yet? YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. Matej Having customizable panels both for math macros and ordinary macros is more urgent IMHO, unless such an embedding helps to do it. We've got here a tool prone to formula typesetting and the reuse of already available stuff is far too rough. Anyone having used Ann Arbor's SGML implementation of TeX will see what I mean I guess. Sorry I can't give a hand on it... -- Jean-Pierre
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters | function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. You only have to provide a patch... (same as you would have to do with python, unless you don't want to share of course.) -- Lgb
Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
On ter 24 duben 2001 21:51 you wrote: 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of "should we, yet?" YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. Matej
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
On Wed 25 duben 2001 12:06 Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved | transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to | implement in LyX. You only have to provide a patch... (same as you would have to do with python, unless you don't want to share of course.) OK, I have no clue how to do it in C++ and I cannot programm well, but I was able to do it in my Word (a long time ago, when have been working with it) like this: Sub Prohodit() Dim Pom As String With Selection .MoveRight Unit:=wdCharacter, Count:=1, Extend:=wdExtend Pom = .Text .Delete .MoveLeft Unit:=wdCharacter, Count:=1 .InsertAfter Pom$ .MoveStart Unit:=wdCharacter, Count:=2 End With End Sub Tell me, how to write it in C++ and where does it go, and five minutes later I will have it there (and you will get a patch). Promise! I do not want quarrel with you about such a triviality, but what I mean is, that by embedding Python you would allow us, non-programmers, to help you a send you beautiful :-) programmes for everything WE need (not what you think we need, which may be sometimes different). Have a nice day Matej Cepl
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Hi, My experience was similar. texmacs was so slow as to being unusable. Perhaps this is not a problem for Quake III machines :) Juha On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Niklas Werner wrote: Hi All! Sorry to be a bit offtopic. (This is not meant to start a new WYSIWYM vs. WYSIWYG debate) Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) seems to be the attempt to bring Latex to WYSIWYG, though it doesn't really work for me ;-(. it's incredibly slow, because it tries to display the postscript right away. Have fun* Niklas
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import
apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups
start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared.
Who cares about proprietary Maple ;)
What would be nice to have is importing of LaTeX generated by
Maxima. Unfortunately it just doesn't work. No error messages, but the
math will have very little WYSIWYM on the screen and LaTeX won't process
the result. Here's small example:
\documentclass[english]{article}
\begin{document}
$${{1}\over{\sqrt{3}}}\leqno{\tt (D1)}$$
\end{document}
(Maxima generates only the math line, header and tail was inserted by me).
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:07:45 +0300 (EEST)
From: Tuukka Toivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Allan Rae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: LyX Users [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import
apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups
start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared.
Who cares about proprietary Maple ;)
What would be nice to have is importing of LaTeX generated by
Maxima. Unfortunately it just doesn't work. No error messages, but the
math will have very little WYSIWYM on the screen and LaTeX won't process
the result. Here's small example:
\documentclass[english]{article}
\begin{document}
$${{1}\over{\sqrt{3}}}\leqno{\tt (D1)}$$
\end{document}
(Maxima generates only the math line, header and tail was inserted by me).
This is plain TeX, you get a right dvi output in LyX if you change
the $$ in $ and wipe out the \leqno{\tt (D1)} (which doesn't make
sense anyway if you want to reference equations at your will).
This is easy to automate.
You would get no ERT at all in LyX if reLyX was able to convert
{1}\over{\sqrt{3}} as \frac{1}{sqrt{3}}: this is more difficult...
Is it a weakness of reLyX (i.e. no implementation of math TeX constructs
in mathed ?).
--
Jean-Pierre
Re[2]: [OT] TeXmacs?
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:19:05 +0200 (CEST) wrote Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems.
[...]
I was thinking about developing 4 for some time but a number of
circumstances have halted the project. Please mail me if you have some
valuable insight into a nice way of doing it.
Well, do you mean something like starting LyX, typing
'C-N C-M \mint a down b down x down x down F10 m' // [1]
and getting
'\frac{1}{2} a x^2 + \frac{1}{2} b x^2'
appended? Seems to work over here ;-)
So, how do you do it? ;-)
I'd like to see LyX as a GUI for some open Algebra System (something like
Scientific workplace?) i.e. not so much for changing formulars on the fly
but as a kind of very pretty printing notebook. (Of course with the option
to integrate the results in a normal LyX document.)
I wonder whether the Lyxpipes are sufficient to achieve this or whether some
changes whithin LyX are required.
There is a promising open Computer Algebra System on the net called YACAS
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~apinkus/) (I haven't tried yet) also MuPad
(http://www.mupad.de/) could be interesting (although not open source) It
allowes to specify the output format (and has already a latex output
library (although this did not work for me)) so it might be convinced to send
something interpretable to the Lyxpipe.
Guenter
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
You would get no ERT at all in LyX if reLyX was able to convert
{1}\over{\sqrt{3}} as \frac{1}{sqrt{3}}: this is more difficult...
Is it a weakness of reLyX (i.e. no implementation of math TeX constructs
in mathed ?).
That's not a job for reLyX, but for the mathed parser...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: [OT] TeXmacs?
So, how do you do it? ;-) Works only with latest CVS and the patch I send yesterday to lyx-devel and only for a very limited set of operations. Note that this combination is not to be used for serious work. Latest recommended version for serious work involving math is CVS from early February, but using one of 1.1.6fixes or even 1.1.5 should be even better. I wonder whether the Lyxpipes are sufficient to achieve this or whether some changes whithin LyX are required. It would probably work with LyXpipes, but that's not what has been used. There is a promising open Computer Algebra System on the net called YACAS (http://www.xs4all.nl/~apinkus/) (I haven't tried yet) also MuPad (http://www.mupad.de/) could be interesting (although not open source) It allowes to specify the output format (and has already a latex output library (although this did not work for me)) so it might be convinced to send something interpretable to the Lyxpipe. All that is needed is either LaTeX or something easily convertable to LaTeX. So MuPAD should be fine in the end. I have never tried YACAS, though. Andre' -- André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Stefano Ghirlanda wrote: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wereb't there some attempts to rewrite NeXT environment for X as a free soft (GNUStep)? As I remember, they tried to create some kind of Display PostScript based on the Ghostscript (there are some remaints in the ghostscript distribution until now -- look through your $GS_LIB). Does anybody have any idea, whether it is alive or definitively dead? It's alive on www.gnustep.org And tries the same as MacOsX that uses pdf for screen display of virtually everything, ie Putting UN*X on the Easy-to-use OO-Desktop
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima LyX)
I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import
apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups
start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared.
Who cares about proprietary Maple ;)
Well, I care, since that's what I am using.
The Maple specific code is currently 57 lines and can be
removed/changed/whatever anytime without recompilation.
What would be nice to have is importing of LaTeX generated by Maxima.
Unfortunately it just doesn't work. No error messages, but the math
will have very little WYSIWYM on the screen and LaTeX won't process the
result. Here's small example:
\documentclass[english]{article} \begin{document}
$${{1}\over{\sqrt{3}}}\leqno{\tt (D1)}$$ \end{document}
\over is evil since it is not properly read by the parser. Well, the parser
needs a rewrite anyway, but apart from that this Maxima input does not
sound too hard to do.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lyx for OSX (was [OT] TeXmacs?)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Jacobo Myesrton wrote: I think that LyX could look very good ported to MacOSX. The port should not be very difficult. It is a matter of rewriting the GUI in Cocoa. ...not be very difficult ;-) Complexity of porting medium-to-low, learning curve of Cocoa unknown. Is somebody working on this? Not at the moment, although, I have been seriously considering applying for an Apple student development place -- free G4 for a year and a bunch of other stuff. Gotta get some more work done on my thesis first though :( Are you volunteering? Allan. (ARRae)
Lyx for OSX (was [OT] TeXmacs?)
I think that LyX could look very good ported to MacOSX. The port should not be very difficult. It is a matter of rewriting the GUI in Cocoa. Is somebody working on this?
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
- Original Message - From: "Matej Cepl" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "LyX disc. list" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 9:12 AM Subject: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?) On ter 24 duben 2001 21:51 you wrote: 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of "should we, yet?" YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. Matej We need some lawyers in the developers team eh? ;-) R
Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
Matej Cepl writes: YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. I wouldn't know how to implement it, but I'll second the request. In addition to a transpose-characters (C-t) function, LyX could use a transpose-words (M-t) function; improved implementations of word-capitalize, word-lowcase, and word-upcase functions; and sentence-sensitive commands like delete-to-end-of-sentence (M-d), go-to-end-of-sentence (M-e) and go-to-beginning-of-sentence (M-a). For the eternal wish-list ... -- Ronald Florence http://members.home.net/18james
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
From: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LyX disc. list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:12:56 -0400 On úterý 24 duben 2001 21:51 you wrote: 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of should we, yet? YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. Matej Having customizable panels both for math macros and ordinary macros is more urgent IMHO, unless such an embedding helps to do it. We've got here a tool prone to formula typesetting and the reuse of already available stuff is far too rough. Anyone having used Ann Arbor's SGML implementation of TeX will see what I mean I guess. Sorry I can't give a hand on it... -- Jean-Pierre
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters | function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. You only have to provide a patch... (same as you would have to do with python, unless you don't want to share of course.) -- Lgb
Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
On ter 24 duben 2001 21:51 you wrote: 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of "should we, yet?" YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. Matej
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
On Wed 25 duben 2001 12:06 Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved | transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to | implement in LyX. You only have to provide a patch... (same as you would have to do with python, unless you don't want to share of course.) OK, I have no clue how to do it in C++ and I cannot programm well, but I was able to do it in my Word (a long time ago, when have been working with it) like this: Sub Prohodit() Dim Pom As String With Selection .MoveRight Unit:=wdCharacter, Count:=1, Extend:=wdExtend Pom = .Text .Delete .MoveLeft Unit:=wdCharacter, Count:=1 .InsertAfter Pom$ .MoveStart Unit:=wdCharacter, Count:=2 End With End Sub Tell me, how to write it in C++ and where does it go, and five minutes later I will have it there (and you will get a patch). Promise! I do not want quarrel with you about such a triviality, but what I mean is, that by embedding Python you would allow us, non-programmers, to help you a send you beautiful :-) programmes for everything WE need (not what you think we need, which may be sometimes different). Have a nice day Matej Cepl
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Hi, My experience was similar. texmacs was so slow as to being unusable. Perhaps this is not a problem for Quake III machines :) Juha On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Niklas Werner wrote: > Hi All! > > Sorry to be a bit offtopic. (This is not meant to start a new WYSIWYM > vs. WYSIWYG debate) > Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) > seems to be the attempt to bring Latex to WYSIWYG, though it doesn't > really work for me ;-(. it's incredibly slow, because it tries to display > the postscript right away. > > Have fun* > > Niklas >
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima & LyX)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import
> apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups
> start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared.
Who cares about proprietary Maple ;)
What would be nice to have is importing of LaTeX generated by
Maxima. Unfortunately it just doesn't work. No error messages, but the
math will have very little WYSIWYM on the screen and LaTeX won't process
the result. Here's small example:
\documentclass[english]{article}
\begin{document}
$${{1}\over{\sqrt{3}}}\leqno{\tt (D1)}$$
\end{document}
(Maxima generates only the math line, header and tail was inserted by me).
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima & LyX)
>>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:07:45 +0300 (EEST)
>>From: Tuukka Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>cc: LyX Users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima & LyX)
>>
>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
>>
>>> I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import
>>> apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups
>>> start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared.
>>
>>Who cares about proprietary Maple ;)
>>What would be nice to have is importing of LaTeX generated by
>>Maxima. Unfortunately it just doesn't work. No error messages, but the
>>math will have very little WYSIWYM on the screen and LaTeX won't process
>>the result. Here's small example:
>>
>>\documentclass[english]{article}
>>\begin{document}
>>$${{1}\over{\sqrt{3}}}\leqno{\tt (D1)}$$
>>\end{document}
>>
>>(Maxima generates only the math line, header and tail was inserted by me).
>>
This is plain TeX, you get a right dvi output in LyX if you change
the $$ in $ and wipe out the \leqno{\tt (D1)} (which doesn't make
sense anyway if you want to reference equations at your will).
This is easy to automate.
You would get no ERT at all in LyX if reLyX was able to convert
{1}\over{\sqrt{3}} as \frac{1}{sqrt{3}}: this is more difficult...
Is it a weakness of reLyX (i.e. no implementation of math TeX constructs
in mathed ?).
--
Jean-Pierre
Re[2]: [OT] TeXmacs?
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:19:05 +0200 (CEST) wrote Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems.
> > [...]
> > I was thinking about developing 4 for some time but a number of
> > circumstances have halted the project. Please mail me if you have some
> > valuable insight into a nice way of doing it.
>
> Well, do you mean something like starting LyX, typing
>
>'C-N C-M \mint a b x x F10 m' // [1]
>
> and getting
>
> '\frac{1}{2} a x^2 + \frac{1}{2} b x^2'
>
> appended? Seems to work over here ;-)
So, how do you do it? ;-)
I'd like to see LyX as a GUI for some open Algebra System (something like
Scientific workplace?) i.e. not so much for changing formulars on the fly
but as a kind of "very pretty printing notebook". (Of course with the option
to integrate the results in a "normal" LyX document.)
I wonder whether the Lyxpipes are sufficient to achieve this or whether some
changes whithin LyX are required.
There is a promising open Computer Algebra System on the net called YACAS
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~apinkus/) (I haven't tried yet) also MuPad
(http://www.mupad.de/) could be interesting (although not open source) It
allowes to specify the output format (and has already a latex output
library (although this did not work for me)) so it might be convinced to send
something interpretable to the Lyxpipe.
Guenter
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima & LyX)
> You would get no ERT at all in LyX if reLyX was able to convert
> {1}\over{\sqrt{3}} as \frac{1}{sqrt{3}}: this is more difficult...
> Is it a weakness of reLyX (i.e. no implementation of math TeX constructs
> in mathed ?).
That's not a job for reLyX, but for the mathed parser...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: [OT] TeXmacs?
> So, how do you do it? ;-) Works only with latest CVS and the patch I send yesterday to lyx-devel and only for a very limited set of operations. Note that this combination is not to be used for serious work. Latest recommended version for serious work involving math is CVS from early February, but using one of 1.1.6fixes or even 1.1.5 should be even better. > I wonder whether the Lyxpipes are sufficient to achieve this or whether some > changes whithin LyX are required. It would probably work with LyXpipes, but that's not what has been used. > There is a promising open Computer Algebra System on the net called YACAS > (http://www.xs4all.nl/~apinkus/) (I haven't tried yet) also MuPad > (http://www.mupad.de/) could be interesting (although not open source) It > allowes to specify the output format (and has already a latex output > library (although this did not work for me)) so it might be convinced to send > something interpretable to the Lyxpipe. All that is needed is either LaTeX or something easily convertable to LaTeX. So MuPAD should be fine in the end. I have never tried YACAS, though. Andre' -- André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Stefano Ghirlanda wrote: > > Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Wereb't there some attempts to rewrite NeXT environment for X as > > a free soft (GNUStep)? As I remember, they tried to create some > > kind of Display PostScript based on the Ghostscript (there are > > some remaints in the ghostscript distribution until now -- look > > through your $GS_LIB). Does anybody have any idea, whether it is > > alive or definitively dead? > > It's alive on www.gnustep.org And tries the same as MacOsX that uses pdf for screen display of virtually everything, ie Putting UN*X on the Easy-to-use OO-Desktop
Re: [OT] TeXmacs? (or Maxima & LyX)
> > I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import
> > apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups
> > start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared.
>
> Who cares about proprietary Maple ;)
Well, I care, since that's what I am using.
The Maple specific code is currently 57 lines and can be
removed/changed/whatever anytime without recompilation.
> What would be nice to have is importing of LaTeX generated by Maxima.
> Unfortunately it just doesn't work. No error messages, but the math
> will have very little WYSIWYM on the screen and LaTeX won't process the
> result. Here's small example:
>
> \documentclass[english]{article} \begin{document}
> $${{1}\over{\sqrt{3}}}\leqno{\tt (D1)}$$ \end{document}
\over is evil since it is not properly read by the parser. Well, the parser
needs a rewrite anyway, but apart from that this Maxima input does not
sound too hard to do.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lyx for OSX (was [OT] TeXmacs?)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Jacobo Myesrton wrote: > I think that LyX could look very good ported to MacOSX. The port should > not be very difficult. It is a matter of rewriting the GUI in Cocoa. "...not be very difficult" ;-) Complexity of porting medium-to-low, learning curve of Cocoa unknown. > Is somebody working on this? Not at the moment, although, I have been seriously considering applying for an Apple student development place -- free G4 for a year and a bunch of other stuff. Gotta get some more work done on my thesis first though :( Are you volunteering? Allan. (ARRae)
Lyx for OSX (was [OT] TeXmacs?)
I think that LyX could look very good ported to MacOSX. The port should not be very difficult. It is a matter of rewriting the GUI in Cocoa. Is somebody working on this?
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
- Original Message - From: "Matej Cepl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "LyX disc. list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 9:12 AM Subject: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?) > On úterý 24 duben 2001 21:51 you wrote: > > > 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension > > > language. > > > > Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has > > already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in > > a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of "should we, > > yet?" > > YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters > function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. > > Matej We need some lawyers in the developers team eh? ;-) R
Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
Matej Cepl writes: YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. I wouldn't know how to implement it, but I'll second the request. In addition to a transpose-characters (C-t) function, LyX could use a transpose-words (M-t) function; improved implementations of word-capitalize, word-lowcase, and word-upcase functions; and sentence-sensitive commands like delete-to-end-of-sentence (M-d), go-to-end-of-sentence (M-e) and go-to-beginning-of-sentence (M-a). For the eternal wish-list ... -- Ronald Florence http://members.home.net/18james
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
>>From: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "LyX disc. list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?) >>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:12:56 -0400 >> >>On úterý 24 duben 2001 21:51 you wrote: >>> > 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension >>> > language. >>> >>> Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has >>> already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in >>> a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of "should we, >>> yet?" >> >>YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters >>function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. >> >>Matej Having customizable panels both for math macros and ordinary macros is more urgent IMHO, unless such an embedding helps to do it. We've got here a tool prone to formula typesetting and the reuse of already available stuff is far too rough. Anyone having used Ann Arbor's SGML implementation of TeX will see what I mean I guess. Sorry I can't give a hand on it... -- Jean-Pierre
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters | function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. You only have to provide a patch... (same as you would have to do with python, unless you don't want to share of course.) -- Lgb
Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
On úterý 24 duben 2001 21:51 you wrote: > > 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension > > language. > > Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has > already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in > a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of "should we, > yet?" YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to implement in LyX. Matej
Re: Embedded Python (Was: Re: [OT] TeXmacs?)
On Wed 25 duben 2001 12:06 Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | YES! Than I would be able to get my beloved > | transpose-characters function, which nobody cares to > | implement in LyX. > > You only have to provide a patch... > > (same as you would have to do with python, unless you don't > want to share of course.) OK, I have no clue how to do it in C++ and I cannot programm well, but I was able to do it in my Word (a long time ago, when have been working with it) like this: Sub Prohodit() Dim Pom As String With Selection .MoveRight Unit:=wdCharacter, Count:=1, Extend:=wdExtend Pom = .Text .Delete .MoveLeft Unit:=wdCharacter, Count:=1 .InsertAfter Pom$ .MoveStart Unit:=wdCharacter, Count:=2 End With End Sub Tell me, how to write it in C++ and where does it go, and five minutes later I will have it there (and you will get a patch). Promise! I do not want quarrel with you about such a triviality, but what I mean is, that by embedding Python you would allow us, non-programmers, to help you a send you beautiful :-) programmes for everything WE need (not what you think we need, which may be sometimes different). Have a nice day Matej Cepl
[OT] TeXmacs?
Hi All! Sorry to be a bit offtopic. (This is not meant to start a new WYSIWYM vs. WYSIWYG debate) Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) seems to be the attempt to bring Latex to WYSIWYG, though it doesn't really work for me ;-(. it's incredibly slow, because it tries to display the postscript right away. Have fun* Niklas
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Niklas Werner wrote: Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) seems to be the attempt to bring Latex to WYSIWYG, though it doesn't really work for me ;-(. it's incredibly slow, because it tries to display Looks very impressive. Everything antialiased. And did I see correctly from the screenshots, that it supports directly pari (something kind of what i suggested for lyx and maxima)...? But if it actually runs tex after each keypress, then it really has to be slow. Or maybe it just renders display as postscript without actually calling TeX. (I wonder why there isn't something like display postscript in X, ghostscript has been here for long time... maybe X folks don't like GPL). But I can not praise the speed of LyX either. This 800 MHz Athlon is sometimes uncomfortable slow to handle the LyX tabulars, specially when the cell has math. But AFAIK the tabular code is new and should improve in time.
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Looks very impressive. Everything antialiased. And did I see correctly from the screenshots, that it supports directly pari (something kind of what i suggested for lyx and maxima)...? yupp, that's right But if it actually runs tex after each keypress, then it really has to be slow. Or maybe it just renders display as postscript without actually calling TeX. (I wonder why there isn't something like display postscript in X, ghostscript has been here for long time... maybe X folks don't like GPL). I guess it's the latter, there is a Type1 Server Module in XFree4. there's something about Window::KeyPress() that loads some ps_device. starting up creates all the needed fonts, thus takes a very long time... not reading in the terminal makes you think the App crashed... But I can not praise the speed of LyX either. This 800 MHz Athlon is sometimes uncomfortable slow to handle the LyX tabulars, specially when the cell has math. But AFAIK the tabular code is new and should improve in time. hehe, it's good to hear I'm not alone... Have fun* Niklas -- *** Niklas Werner http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~wernern/ ***
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Niklas Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) I have tried an earlier version. The display looks good, but I found some major problems (for me, they are intentional features). TeXmacs is *not* a frontend to TeX/LaTeX, it *never* runs these. You cannot use LaTeX packages. Export to and import from LaTeX are only partially supported, and will never be fully implemented. More info from the TeXmacs FAQ: Question 5. What are the differences between TeXmacs and LyX? Answer. TeXmacs is a more ambitious project. Some of its major advantages are the following: 1.TeXmacs is fully WYSIWYG. 2.TeXmacs has a professional typesetting quality and nicer fonts. 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. 4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems. I don't really care much about 1. I don't really understand 2... I doubt that TeXmacs is as good as TeX/LaTeX at typesetting professionally. I am sure the LyX developers will comment on point 3. I was thinking about developing 4 for some time but a number of circumstances have halted the project. Please mail me if you have some valuable insight into a nice way of doing it. -- Stefano Ghirlanda, Zoologiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet email: you know it already, tel: +46-8-164055, fax:+46-8-167715 the free science campaign: http://ethology.zool.su.se/freescience
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems.
[...]
I was thinking about developing 4 for some time but a number of
circumstances have halted the project. Please mail me if you have some
valuable insight into a nice way of doing it.
Well, do you mean something like starting LyX, typing
'C-N C-M \mint a down b down x down x down F10 m' // [1]
and getting
'\frac{1}{2} a x^2 + \frac{1}{2} b x^2'
appended? Seems to work over here ;-)
Looks like some polishing is needed though...
Andre'
[1] \mint is just \newcommand{\mint}[4]{\int_{#1}^{#2}#3d#4}
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wereb't there some attempts to rewrite NeXT environment for X as a free soft (GNUStep)? As I remember, they tried to create some kind of Display PostScript based on the Ghostscript (there are some remaints in the ghostscript distribution until now -- look through your $GS_LIB). Does anybody have any idea, whether it is alive or definitively dead? It's alive on www.gnustep.org -- Stefano Ghirlanda, Zoologiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet email: you know it already, tel: +46-8-164055, fax:+46-8-167715 the free science campaign: http://ethology.zool.su.se/freescience
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
On 24 Apr 2001, Stefano Ghirlanda wrote: Question 5. What are the differences between TeXmacs and LyX? Answer. TeXmacs is a more ambitious project. Some of its major advantages are the following: 1.TeXmacs is fully WYSIWYG. With all the problems that entails. Including a frustrating interface -- at least on the version I tried a year ago -- that requires you to be in its page-size mode (or whatever they call it) in order to print. Very frustrating when you just want to use it like you use LyX. 2.TeXmacs has a professional typesetting quality and nicer fonts. I think (hope) they are only talking about the on-screen display. If they seriously think they are in TeX' league for typeset output then they must be using TeX internally. The anti-aliased fonts are _very_ nice. I think we should be able to get those faster just by using the anti-aliased canvas from an appropriate toolkit or straight from X (well XFree86 anyway). 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of should we, yet? 4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems. I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared. Allan. (ARRae)
[OT] TeXmacs?
Hi All! Sorry to be a bit offtopic. (This is not meant to start a new WYSIWYM vs. WYSIWYG debate) Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) seems to be the attempt to bring Latex to WYSIWYG, though it doesn't really work for me ;-(. it's incredibly slow, because it tries to display the postscript right away. Have fun* Niklas
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Niklas Werner wrote: Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) seems to be the attempt to bring Latex to WYSIWYG, though it doesn't really work for me ;-(. it's incredibly slow, because it tries to display Looks very impressive. Everything antialiased. And did I see correctly from the screenshots, that it supports directly pari (something kind of what i suggested for lyx and maxima)...? But if it actually runs tex after each keypress, then it really has to be slow. Or maybe it just renders display as postscript without actually calling TeX. (I wonder why there isn't something like display postscript in X, ghostscript has been here for long time... maybe X folks don't like GPL). But I can not praise the speed of LyX either. This 800 MHz Athlon is sometimes uncomfortable slow to handle the LyX tabulars, specially when the cell has math. But AFAIK the tabular code is new and should improve in time.
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Looks very impressive. Everything antialiased. And did I see correctly from the screenshots, that it supports directly pari (something kind of what i suggested for lyx and maxima)...? yupp, that's right But if it actually runs tex after each keypress, then it really has to be slow. Or maybe it just renders display as postscript without actually calling TeX. (I wonder why there isn't something like display postscript in X, ghostscript has been here for long time... maybe X folks don't like GPL). I guess it's the latter, there is a Type1 Server Module in XFree4. there's something about Window::KeyPress() that loads some ps_device. starting up creates all the needed fonts, thus takes a very long time... not reading in the terminal makes you think the App crashed... But I can not praise the speed of LyX either. This 800 MHz Athlon is sometimes uncomfortable slow to handle the LyX tabulars, specially when the cell has math. But AFAIK the tabular code is new and should improve in time. hehe, it's good to hear I'm not alone... Have fun* Niklas -- *** Niklas Werner http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~wernern/ ***
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Niklas Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) I have tried an earlier version. The display looks good, but I found some major problems (for me, they are intentional features). TeXmacs is *not* a frontend to TeX/LaTeX, it *never* runs these. You cannot use LaTeX packages. Export to and import from LaTeX are only partially supported, and will never be fully implemented. More info from the TeXmacs FAQ: Question 5. What are the differences between TeXmacs and LyX? Answer. TeXmacs is a more ambitious project. Some of its major advantages are the following: 1.TeXmacs is fully WYSIWYG. 2.TeXmacs has a professional typesetting quality and nicer fonts. 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. 4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems. I don't really care much about 1. I don't really understand 2... I doubt that TeXmacs is as good as TeX/LaTeX at typesetting professionally. I am sure the LyX developers will comment on point 3. I was thinking about developing 4 for some time but a number of circumstances have halted the project. Please mail me if you have some valuable insight into a nice way of doing it. -- Stefano Ghirlanda, Zoologiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet email: you know it already, tel: +46-8-164055, fax:+46-8-167715 the free science campaign: http://ethology.zool.su.se/freescience
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems.
[...]
I was thinking about developing 4 for some time but a number of
circumstances have halted the project. Please mail me if you have some
valuable insight into a nice way of doing it.
Well, do you mean something like starting LyX, typing
'C-N C-M \mint a down b down x down x down F10 m' // [1]
and getting
'\frac{1}{2} a x^2 + \frac{1}{2} b x^2'
appended? Seems to work over here ;-)
Looks like some polishing is needed though...
Andre'
[1] \mint is just \newcommand{\mint}[4]{\int_{#1}^{#2}#3d#4}
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Matej Cepl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wereb't there some attempts to rewrite NeXT environment for X as a free soft (GNUStep)? As I remember, they tried to create some kind of Display PostScript based on the Ghostscript (there are some remaints in the ghostscript distribution until now -- look through your $GS_LIB). Does anybody have any idea, whether it is alive or definitively dead? It's alive on www.gnustep.org -- Stefano Ghirlanda, Zoologiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet email: you know it already, tel: +46-8-164055, fax:+46-8-167715 the free science campaign: http://ethology.zool.su.se/freescience
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
On 24 Apr 2001, Stefano Ghirlanda wrote: Question 5. What are the differences between TeXmacs and LyX? Answer. TeXmacs is a more ambitious project. Some of its major advantages are the following: 1.TeXmacs is fully WYSIWYG. With all the problems that entails. Including a frustrating interface -- at least on the version I tried a year ago -- that requires you to be in its page-size mode (or whatever they call it) in order to print. Very frustrating when you just want to use it like you use LyX. 2.TeXmacs has a professional typesetting quality and nicer fonts. I think (hope) they are only talking about the on-screen display. If they seriously think they are in TeX' league for typeset output then they must be using TeX internally. The anti-aliased fonts are _very_ nice. I think we should be able to get those faster just by using the anti-aliased canvas from an appropriate toolkit or straight from X (well XFree86 anyway). 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of should we, yet? 4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems. I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared. Allan. (ARRae)
[OT] TeXmacs?
Hi All! Sorry to be a bit offtopic. (This is not meant to start a new WYSIWYM vs. WYSIWYG debate) Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) seems to be the attempt to bring Latex to WYSIWYG, though it doesn't really work for me ;-(. it's incredibly slow, because it tries to display the postscript right away. Have fun* Niklas
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Niklas Werner wrote: > Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) > seems to be the attempt to bring Latex to WYSIWYG, though it doesn't > really work for me ;-(. it's incredibly slow, because it tries to display Looks very impressive. Everything antialiased. And did I see correctly from the screenshots, that it supports directly pari (something kind of what i suggested for lyx and maxima)...? But if it actually runs tex after each keypress, then it really has to be slow. Or maybe it just renders display as postscript without actually calling TeX. (I wonder why there isn't something like display postscript in X, ghostscript has been here for long time... maybe X folks don't like GPL). But I can not praise the speed of LyX either. This 800 MHz Athlon is sometimes uncomfortable slow to handle the LyX tabulars, specially when the cell has math. But AFAIK the tabular code is new and should improve in time.
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
> Looks very impressive. Everything antialiased. And did I see correctly > from the screenshots, that it supports directly pari (something kind of > what i suggested for lyx and maxima)...? yupp, that's right > But if it actually runs tex after each keypress, then it really has to > be slow. Or maybe it just renders display as postscript without > actually calling TeX. (I wonder why there isn't something like display > postscript in X, ghostscript has been here for long time... maybe X > folks don't like GPL). I guess it's the latter, there is a Type1 Server Module in XFree4. there's something about Window::KeyPress() that loads some ps_device. starting up creates all the needed fonts, thus takes a very long time... not reading in the terminal makes you think the App crashed... > > But I can not praise the speed of LyX either. This 800 MHz Athlon is > sometimes uncomfortable slow to handle the LyX tabulars, specially when > the cell has math. But AFAIK the tabular code is new and should improve > in time. hehe, it's good to hear I'm not alone... Have fun* Niklas -- *** Niklas Werner http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~wernern/ ***
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Niklas Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Has anybody ever tried TeXmacs? (www.texmacs.org) I have tried an earlier version. The display looks good, but I found some major problems (for me, they are intentional features). TeXmacs is *not* a frontend to TeX/LaTeX, it *never* runs these. You cannot use LaTeX packages. Export to and import from LaTeX are only partially supported, and will never be fully implemented. More info from the TeXmacs FAQ: Question 5. What are the differences between TeXmacs and LyX? Answer. TeXmacs is a more ambitious project. Some of its major advantages are the following: 1.TeXmacs is fully WYSIWYG. 2.TeXmacs has a professional typesetting quality and nicer fonts. 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. 4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems. I don't really care much about 1. I don't really understand 2... I doubt that TeXmacs is as good as TeX/LaTeX at typesetting "professionally". I am sure the LyX developers will comment on point 3. I was thinking about developing 4 for some time but a number of circumstances have halted the project. Please mail me if you have some valuable insight into a nice way of doing it. -- Stefano Ghirlanda, Zoologiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet email: you know it already, tel: +46-8-164055, fax:+46-8-167715 the free science campaign: http://ethology.zool.su.se/freescience
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
> 4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems.
> [...]
> I was thinking about developing 4 for some time but a number of
> circumstances have halted the project. Please mail me if you have some
> valuable insight into a nice way of doing it.
Well, do you mean something like starting LyX, typing
'C-N C-M \mint a b x x F10 m' // [1]
and getting
'\frac{1}{2} a x^2 + \frac{1}{2} b x^2'
appended? Seems to work over here ;-)
Looks like some polishing is needed though...
Andre'
[1] \mint is just \newcommand{\mint}[4]{\int_{#1}^{#2}#3d#4}
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wereb't there some attempts to rewrite NeXT environment for X as > a free soft (GNUStep)? As I remember, they tried to create some > kind of Display PostScript based on the Ghostscript (there are > some remaints in the ghostscript distribution until now -- look > through your $GS_LIB). Does anybody have any idea, whether it is > alive or definitively dead? It's alive on www.gnustep.org -- Stefano Ghirlanda, Zoologiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet email: you know it already, tel: +46-8-164055, fax:+46-8-167715 the free science campaign: http://ethology.zool.su.se/freescience
Re: [OT] TeXmacs?
On 24 Apr 2001, Stefano Ghirlanda wrote: > Question 5. What are the differences between TeXmacs and LyX? > >Answer. TeXmacs is a more ambitious project. Some of its major >advantages are the following: > > 1.TeXmacs is fully WYSIWYG. With all the problems that entails. Including a frustrating interface -- at least on the version I tried a year ago -- that requires you to be in its page-size mode (or whatever they call it) in order to print. Very frustrating when you just want to use it like you use LyX. > 2.TeXmacs has a professional typesetting quality and nicer fonts. I think (hope) they are only talking about the on-screen display. If they seriously think they are in TeX' league for typeset output then they must be using TeX internally. The anti-aliased fonts are _very_ nice. I think we should be able to get those faster just by using the anti-aliased canvas from an appropriate toolkit or straight from X (well XFree86 anyway). > 3.TeXmacs comes with the Guile/Scheme extension language. Hmmm... we'll almost certainly end up with Python. Asger has already shown about 3 years ago that Python can be embedded in a couple of lines. The problem is more a matter of "should we, yet?" > 4.You can use TeXmacs as an interface to computer algebra systems. I'll give them that one for the moment (although Maple LaTeX import apparently works) and we've had at least two different interested groups start some work on this but they seem to have disappeared. Allan. (ARRae)
