On 05/17/2014 04:29 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> https://github.com/hemmecke/fricas/commits/fricas-book
> There are some patches which which do
> not require any disscussion like: 'add syscmd ioHooks' and
> 'ioHook for error function' (the two probably should go together).
OK, I can prepare that, but I think I must look somewhere into the emacs
startup and change something there since in efricas I get something like
this...
(1) -> )co "asq.spad"
Compiling FriCAS source code from file
/home/hemmecke/backup/git/fricas/src/doc/asq.spad using old
system compiler.
|startSysCmd| <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
CATDATA abbreviates domain CategoryData
|endSysCmd| <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
which shouldn't be visible in a normal session.
I'm going to prepare patches with ChangeLog entries now and will ask
again before I commit to the official repo.
> Then, there are ones which can go in, but are worth some
> discussion, like 'properly escape in TeXFormat'. This one
> is clear improvement on what we have now. OTOH I am do not
> see code to escape backslash, and braces.
I don't understand what you mean. Isn't the following OK?
(1) -> )set output tex on
(1) -> )set output algebra off
(1) -> "\foo{}"
$$
\verb#"\foo{}"#
\leqno(1)
$$
Tell, me a concrete problem I can work on.
> More generaly,
> I was looking at other problems with TexFormat and it seems
> that we should have a bunch of TeX macros to supply needed
> constructs. For example, for escaping we could use macros
> which provide special TeX characters, but of category
> "normal character". Some are already included in TeX, but
> w could define missing ones.
I consider that as problem that is orthogonal to my \verb stuff.
And thus it should be a separate patch.
Furthermore, for the book I introduced )set output latex on.
I actually don't think, we should have both, tex and latex. I'd rather
simply replace TeX by LaTeX. Do you think that nowadays there are still
people who want to include pure TeX commands instead of LaTeX
equivalents? The amsmath package has become more or less a standard.
And the \begin{dmath} ... \end{dmath} of breqn.sty even seems to be better.
> In issue tracker we have
> report about missing ALTSUPERSUB in TexFormat. With proper
> TeX macro adding it to TexFormat would be very easy.
> Without such macro this looks like hard problem.
What do you mean?
The right thing to solve this issue is to document all the operators of
OutputForm and then (and that for all formatters, not only TeX) have an
appropriate equivalent.
> Then there are some changes where it is not clear if we want
> to make them. In particular, I see that you suppressed
> output in LexTriangular example. Why? Is it problem
> with breqn?
Oh, OK, that's a workaround to make everything compile. Yes, it's a
problem with breqn.sty. The output is simply to large and computation in
breqn.sty leads to (I think) integer overflow if a TeX register.
I've switched it off, because I think that nobody wants to read 3 pages
of computed output. I think the problem is actually not breqn, but
rather that the content is not really well thought of. For tutorial
purposes, it's enough to see by which commands one computes something,
but one can explicitly say that the output shown at that place has been
truncated, or one even just explicitly computes output that exactly
shows what one wants to focus on.
So yes, you might think that this is a step back, but for me it's a
technical thing that must be done. As I said, the actual contents of the
book needs revision anyway and at revision time one can also deal with
these issues of too large output.
Ralf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
