#6089: [with patch, needs work] view command: don't always use jsMath
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: jhpalmieri | Owner: jhpalmieri
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-4.0
Component: misc | Keywords:
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment(by jhpalmieri):
I'm not sure I agree with point 1, because I think it's asking Sage to be
smarter than LaTeX about processing LaTeX. If you can't use xdvi or
evince to view a file outside of Sage, why should you expect Sage to do a
better job? We can certainly rewrite the descriptions of the
latex_examples saying that there might be rendering problems depending on
how the system is set up, and perhaps setting pdflatex=True would do a
better job. Would that be good enough?
For point 2, I'm not sure what do to. First, it seems that in the
notebook, view is rather broken: running
{{{
view([ZZ[x], RR, CC])
}}}
produces
{{{
[Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Integer Ring, Real Field with 53
bits of precision, Complex Field with 53 bits of precision]
}}}
typeset by jsMath as if in math mode, so there are no spaces between
words. It's terrible. Since view works fine on single objects, I can put
in a small change which fixes this and would change the output to
{{{
Z[x]
R
C
}}}
(with the appropriate letters in bold face). Notice: no brackets any
more, and this is consistent with how it works in the command line. This
will also work, sort of, with jsmath-avoidance: each object in a list will
be typeset separately, so you only get pictures when you need them.
However, the pictures always appear at the end, and this might just be how
the notebook displays things: text first followed by pictures. Therefore
{{{
view([ZZ[x], latex_examples.knot(), RR, CC])
}}}
will produce
{{{
Z[x]
R
C
}}}
and then a picture of the knot. Is this good enough? Maybe we can add a
place-holder "picture below", or something like that. I'll keep
investigating, but we may not have a good solution here.
I completely agree about point 3. This is actually innocuous with
jsmath_avoid (except for speed issues, I guess), but could lead to errors
with the preamble or macros: if you repeat the same newcommand, it
produces a latex error, which would probably make the typesetting fail.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6089#comment:3>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage - Open Source Mathematical Software: Building the Car Instead of
Reinventing the Wheel
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
