Amir Michail wrote:
Except that you can't import TeX/LaTeX flawlessly. So it's
More precisely, what you can't import flawlessy is the TeX low-level horrors.
But as soon as your LaTeX is clean (i.e. : it uses only macros built on a set of clean primitives), then if the import is not absolutely perfect right now (although it is already quite good), it can definitely be lead to the point of perfection, it's just a matter of time (and contributions ;-).
misleading. Maybe "BeyondTeX" would be a good name?
I agree that in its current incarnation, the name is misleading. But the fact remains that (from an historical point of view, and from a very concrete point of view, too) TeXmacs *is* rooted in LaTeX. What you say makes me think about a perhaps sensible approach to tackle this problem (this is perhaps the only one) : work for identifying a *clean* subset of TeX / LaTeX, and implement this "perfect subset" of TeX / LaTeX flawlessly. This way, we could claim that we *are* TeX/LaTeX for one part, and define exactly what TeXmacs is and is not, and in the same time justify precisely *why* the part of TeX/LaTeX we implement is the "clean" and reasonable one. To do this would be a long way home, but it would probably improve a lot the understanding of our choices... _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
