Hi Max, Yes, we can decide in most cases. But LaTeX is hairy, as always, and not very robust. We don't want the LaTeX compilation to fail in 1% of the cases in which something may have gone wrong.
Best wishes, --Joris On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:26:24AM +0200, Massimiliano Gubinelli wrote: > Hi Joris, Hi all, > wrt. to the reply below: is not known to TeXmacs whether we are in LaTeX > math mode or not? We should be able to precompute this and avoid \ensuremath > all the way (apart from macro definitions). Or there are some issues there? > > Best > Max > > ps: I've moved the discussion to texmacs-dev. > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: TeXmacs <texm...@lix.polytechnique.fr> > > Subject: Re: TeXmacs: why is \ensuremath needed for conversion to LaTeX > > Date: 7. May 2021 at 17:46:26 CEST > > To: texmacs-us...@texmacs.org > > Reply-To: TeXmacs <texm...@lix.polytechnique.fr> > > > > Hi Frank, > > > > For a systematic export tool, it is better to be redundant than > > as tight as possible, but occasionally buggy. > > > > The LaTeX export should be robust with respect to user errors, > > such as using a mathematical primitive in text mode. > > In my test files, such errors are rare, but they occur, > > and we don't want them to break the conversion. > > > > Best wishes, --Joris > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 05:30:27PM +0200, Frank wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> I spotted that the tex file converted from TeXmacs is filled with > >> \ensuremath{\operatorname{...}}. I wonder why the \ensuremath is needed. > >> This seems redundant in my document. > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> Frank > > _______________________________________________ > Texmacs-dev mailing list > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev