Re: Maketitle and latex command completion in lyx.
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:35 PM Pavel Sanda via lyx-users wrote: > > On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 11:18:39AM +0800, Hongyi Zhao wrote: > > 1. How can I input/generate/create a title from scratch? > > Not sure what you mean by "scratch", but generally you create title > by using environment Title (left top combobox in the toolbar). > > > 2. Why can't the inline LaTeX commands be completed automatically, as > > shown in the attached file? > > Completion "In Text" works only in normal written text, not within > direct latex command you insert via Insert -> TeX Code. Got it. Thank you for your explanation. > Pavel HZ > -- > lyx-users mailing list > lyx-users@lists.lyx.org > http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users -- lyx-users mailing list lyx-users@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: Maketitle and latex command completion in lyx.
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 11:18:39AM +0800, Hongyi Zhao wrote: > 1. How can I input/generate/create a title from scratch? Not sure what you mean by "scratch", but generally you create title by using environment Title (left top combobox in the toolbar). > 2. Why can't the inline LaTeX commands be completed automatically, as > shown in the attached file? Completion "In Text" works only in normal written text, not within direct latex command you insert via Insert -> TeX Code. Pavel -- lyx-users mailing list lyx-users@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: Lagging in math command completion combo box
You can press the tab key.
Re: Lagging in math command completion combo box
You can press the tab key.
Re: Lagging in math command completion combo box
You can press the tab key.
Lagging in math command completion combo box
When I'm inside a math environment (ctrl+m), and I start to write a symbol \math, Iyx immediately shows in a faded text a correct completion \mathbb. Then, I need to wait a few seconds until a combo box with all the options would pop up, and only then I can press enter and select \mathbb. Is there a way to immediately accept a suggestion without waiting for the combo box? For example, in visual studio it's done with ctrl+space.
Lagging in math command completion combo box
When I'm inside a math environment (ctrl+m), and I start to write a symbol \math, Iyx immediately shows in a faded text a correct completion \mathbb. Then, I need to wait a few seconds until a combo box with all the options would pop up, and only then I can press enter and select \mathbb. Is there a way to immediately accept a suggestion without waiting for the combo box? For example, in visual studio it's done with ctrl+space.
Lagging in math command completion combo box
When I'm inside a math environment (ctrl+m), and I start to write a symbol "\math", Iyx immediately shows in a faded text a correct completion "\mathbb". Then, I need to wait a few seconds until a combo box with all the options would pop up, and only then I can press enter and select "\mathbb". Is there a way to immediately accept a suggestion without waiting for the combo box? For example, in visual studio it's done with ctrl+space.
Re: \command completion
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 01:18:01AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, that makes sense. Of course if someone really has patience, understanding, and maybe a functional-programming-bent, I'd guess a style could be designed that overrides \newcommand and other macro definition facilities so that they create lists of available macros, instead of actually defining them, and run this in the background to create a list of available macros which could then be used for the completion. Not just that, it also requires a more-than-healthy addiction to masochism. Again, its probably true that a very approximate and simplistic solution would probably provide 90% of the benefit, but I wouldn't claim that that would be simple to do, either. Examples of probably reasonable approximations: - only pick up some of the definition types - analyze styles in batch, and present lists based on those - ignore completely the cancellation/redefinition of macros, and simply show anything that was ever defined (autocompletion doesn't have to guarantee results that are correct at all levels) This might be do-able. However, unless a volunteer steps up I don't see it coming into existence - even if quite a bit of the necessary infrastructure is already in place thanks to the math preview facility, I can even almost imagine a regular expression based hack providing significant benefits... ... but certainly not with regular expressions if you aim for 90+% reliability. One on the main problems of the TeX language is that it is too flexible to be predictable, and the outstanding major problem is that even standard .sty files use too much of the fancy language gimmicks to be easily parsable for any program different from TeX itself. Andre' PS: Please don't top-post-bottom-quote on this list.
Re: \command completion
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:14:47AM +, Ronen Abravanel wrote: As for most of the people, most of the Tex typing is done in math mode, Is to use the current known signes from math-panel/those how replaced by the proper signe + math-macro. I think It will do most of the work. I see your point. Again, mot full-latex-auto copletion, only supported-math-mode-symbols complition. And this should be possible. Would be nice if someone filed this feature request on bugzilla in case someone *cough* finds the time to implement it. Andre'
Re: \command completion
Oh, that makes sense. Of course if someone really has patience, understanding, and maybe a functional-programming-bent, I'd guess a style could be designed that overrides \newcommand and other macro definition facilities so that they create lists of available macros, instead of actually defining them, and run this in the background to create a list of available macros which could then be used for the completion. Again, its probably true that a very approximate and simplistic solution would probably provide 90% of the benefit, but I wouldn't claim that that would be simple to do, either. Examples of probably reasonable approximations: - only pick up some of the definition types - analyze styles in batch, and present lists based on those - ignore completely the cancellation/redefinition of macros, and simply show anything that was ever defined (autocompletion doesn't have to guarantee results that are correct at all levels) I can even almost imagine a regular expression based hack providing significant benefits... Daniel Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:05:35 +0200 From: Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: \command completion To: Ronen Abravanel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] delivery-date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:47:17 +0300 On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 04:14:07PM +, Ronen Abravanel wrote: I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twoheadtab, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Would be nice but as far as I can tell there is no way to retrieve all defined macros in TeX. One can only check for a specific macro and even that would be misleading as any standard TeX macro might have vanished at the point where you try to insert it in LyX. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Looking up commands is the problem here... Andre'
Re: \command completion
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 01:18:01AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, that makes sense. Of course if someone really has patience, understanding, and maybe a functional-programming-bent, I'd guess a style could be designed that overrides \newcommand and other macro definition facilities so that they create lists of available macros, instead of actually defining them, and run this in the background to create a list of available macros which could then be used for the completion. Not just that, it also requires a more-than-healthy addiction to masochism. Again, its probably true that a very approximate and simplistic solution would probably provide 90% of the benefit, but I wouldn't claim that that would be simple to do, either. Examples of probably reasonable approximations: - only pick up some of the definition types - analyze styles in batch, and present lists based on those - ignore completely the cancellation/redefinition of macros, and simply show anything that was ever defined (autocompletion doesn't have to guarantee results that are correct at all levels) This might be do-able. However, unless a volunteer steps up I don't see it coming into existence - even if quite a bit of the necessary infrastructure is already in place thanks to the math preview facility, I can even almost imagine a regular expression based hack providing significant benefits... ... but certainly not with regular expressions if you aim for 90+% reliability. One on the main problems of the TeX language is that it is too flexible to be predictable, and the outstanding major problem is that even standard .sty files use too much of the fancy language gimmicks to be easily parsable for any program different from TeX itself. Andre' PS: Please don't top-post-bottom-quote on this list.
Re: \command completion
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:14:47AM +, Ronen Abravanel wrote: As for most of the people, most of the Tex typing is done in math mode, Is to use the current known signes from math-panel/those how replaced by the proper signe + math-macro. I think It will do most of the work. I see your point. Again, mot full-latex-auto copletion, only supported-math-mode-symbols complition. And this should be possible. Would be nice if someone filed this feature request on bugzilla in case someone *cough* finds the time to implement it. Andre'
Re: \command completion
Oh, that makes sense. Of course if someone really has patience, understanding, and maybe a functional-programming-bent, I'd guess a style could be designed that overrides \newcommand and other macro definition facilities so that they create lists of available macros, instead of actually defining them, and run this in the background to create a list of available macros which could then be used for the completion. Again, its probably true that a very approximate and simplistic solution would probably provide 90% of the benefit, but I wouldn't claim that that would be simple to do, either. Examples of probably reasonable approximations: - only pick up some of the definition types - analyze styles in batch, and present lists based on those - ignore completely the cancellation/redefinition of macros, and simply show anything that was ever defined (autocompletion doesn't have to guarantee results that are correct at all levels) I can even almost imagine a regular expression based hack providing significant benefits... Daniel Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:05:35 +0200 From: Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: \command completion To: Ronen Abravanel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] delivery-date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:47:17 +0300 On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 04:14:07PM +, Ronen Abravanel wrote: I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twoheadtab, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Would be nice but as far as I can tell there is no way to retrieve all defined macros in TeX. One can only check for a specific macro and even that would be misleading as any standard TeX macro might have vanished at the point where you try to insert it in LyX. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Looking up commands is the problem here... Andre'
Re: \command completion
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 01:18:01AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Oh, that makes sense. > > Of course if someone really has patience, understanding, and maybe a > functional-programming-bent, I'd guess a style could be designed that > overrides \newcommand and other macro definition facilities so that they > create lists of available macros, instead of actually defining them, and > run this in the background to create a list of available macros which > could then be used for the completion. Not just that, it also requires a more-than-healthy addiction to masochism. > Again, its probably true that a very approximate and simplistic solution > would probably provide 90% of the benefit, but I wouldn't claim that > that would be simple to do, either. Examples of probably reasonable > approximations: > - only pick up some of the definition types > - analyze styles in batch, and present lists based on those > - ignore completely the cancellation/redefinition of macros, and simply > show anything that was ever defined (autocompletion doesn't have to > guarantee results that are correct at all levels) This might be do-able. However, unless a volunteer steps up I don't see it coming into existence - even if quite a bit of the necessary infrastructure is already in place thanks to the math preview facility, > I can even almost imagine a regular expression based hack providing > significant benefits... ... but certainly not with regular expressions if you aim for "90+%" "reliability". One on the main problems of the TeX language is that it is too flexible to be predictable, and the outstanding major problem is that even standard .sty files use too much of the fancy language gimmicks to be easily parsable for any program different from TeX itself. Andre' PS: Please don't top-post-bottom-quote on this list.
Re: \command completion
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:14:47AM +, Ronen Abravanel wrote: > As for most of the people, most of the Tex typing is done in math mode, Is to > use the current known signes from math-panel/those how replaced by the proper > signe + math-macro. > I think It will do most of the work. I see your point. > Again, mot full-latex-auto copletion, only supported-math-mode-symbols > complition. And this should be possible. Would be nice if someone filed this feature request on bugzilla in case someone *cough* finds the time to implement it. Andre'
Re: \command completion
Oh, that makes sense. Of course if someone really has patience, understanding, and maybe a functional-programming-bent, I'd guess a style could be designed that overrides \newcommand and other macro definition facilities so that they create lists of available macros, instead of actually defining them, and run this in the background to create a list of available macros which could then be used for the completion. Again, its probably true that a very approximate and simplistic solution would probably provide 90% of the benefit, but I wouldn't claim that that would be simple to do, either. Examples of probably reasonable approximations: - only pick up some of the definition types - analyze styles in batch, and present lists based on those - ignore completely the cancellation/redefinition of macros, and simply show anything that was ever defined (autocompletion doesn't have to guarantee results that are correct at all levels) I can even almost imagine a regular expression based hack providing significant benefits... Daniel Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 17:05:35 +0200 > From: Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: \command completion > To: Ronen Abravanel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > delivery-date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:47:17 +0300 > > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 04:14:07PM +, Ronen Abravanel wrote: > > I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile > > people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are > > stuck. > > > > For example, if I write \twohead, vaguely remembering something like > > \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really > > exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. > > Would be nice but as far as I can tell there is no way to retrieve all > defined macros in TeX. One can only check for a specific macro and even > that would be misleading as any standard TeX macro might have vanished > at the point where you try to insert it in LyX. > > > Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the > > benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all > > commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, > > just looking up commands and inserting characters). > > Looking up commands is the problem here... > > Andre'
Re: \command completion
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 04:14:07PM +, Ronen Abravanel wrote: I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twoheadtab, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Would be nice but as far as I can tell there is no way to retrieve all defined macros in TeX. One can only check for a specific macro and even that would be misleading as any standard TeX macro might have vanished at the point where you try to insert it in LyX. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Looking up commands is the problem here... Andre'
Re: \command completion
As for most of the people, most of the Tex typing is done in math mode, Is to use the current known signes from math-panel/those how replaced by the proper signe + math-macro. I think It will do most of the work. Again, mot full-latex-auto copletion, only supported-math-mode-symbols complition.
Re: \command completion
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 04:14:07PM +, Ronen Abravanel wrote: I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twoheadtab, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Would be nice but as far as I can tell there is no way to retrieve all defined macros in TeX. One can only check for a specific macro and even that would be misleading as any standard TeX macro might have vanished at the point where you try to insert it in LyX. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Looking up commands is the problem here... Andre'
Re: \command completion
As for most of the people, most of the Tex typing is done in math mode, Is to use the current known signes from math-panel/those how replaced by the proper signe + math-macro. I think It will do most of the work. Again, mot full-latex-auto copletion, only supported-math-mode-symbols complition.
Re: \command completion
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 04:14:07PM +, Ronen Abravanel wrote: > I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile > people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are > stuck. > > For example, if I write \twohead, vaguely remembering something like > \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really > exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Would be nice but as far as I can tell there is no way to retrieve all defined macros in TeX. One can only check for a specific macro and even that would be misleading as any standard TeX macro might have vanished at the point where you try to insert it in LyX. > Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the > benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all > commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, > just looking up commands and inserting characters). Looking up commands is the problem here... Andre'
Re: \command completion
As for most of the people, most of the Tex typing is done in math mode, Is to use the current known signes from math-panel/those how replaced by the proper signe + math-macro. I think It will do most of the work. Again, mot full-latex-auto copletion, only supported-math-mode-symbols complition.
\command completion
Sorry I send it again, But I sent it during the time the list was down, And most of that time are Response-less. I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twoheadtab, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Ronen says that a smarter implementation might use the status bar instead, and he's probably right, but I'd prefer a simpler implementation than none... Daniel
\command completion
Sorry I send it again, But I sent it during the time the list was down, And most of that time are Response-less. I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twoheadtab, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Ronen says that a smarter implementation might use the status bar instead, and he's probably right, but I'd prefer a simpler implementation than none... Daniel
\command completion
Sorry I send it again, But I sent it during the time the list was down, And most of that time are Response-less. I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twohead, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Ronen says that a smarter implementation might use the status bar instead, and he's probably right, but I'd prefer a simpler implementation than none... Daniel
\command completion
I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twoheadtab, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Ronen says that a smarter implementation might use the status bar instead, and he's probably right, but I'd prefer a simpler implementation than none... Daniel
\command completion
I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twoheadtab, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Ronen says that a smarter implementation might use the status bar instead, and he's probably right, but I'd prefer a simpler implementation than none... Daniel
\command completion
I think lyx would be even more magnificant than it is if it helped out senile people like me that don't remember all of their latex commands when they are stuck. For example, if I write \twohead, vaguely remembering something like \twoheadleftrightarrow, then I would like to be told whether it really exists, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. Probably some very simple variation on autocompletion would bring most of the benefit, even if it simply autocompleted the maximal prefix common to all commands that match the typed prefix (which doesn't require new UI elements, just looking up commands and inserting characters). Ronen says that a smarter implementation might use the status bar instead, and he's probably right, but I'd prefer a simpler implementation than none... Daniel
