That's very helpful. Thank you! Nathan
On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Gubinelli Massimiliano wrote: > TeXmacs is a structured editor. As such there is not a specific portion which > deals with math (which is only a particular markup with some special > rendering rules). The current codebase is quite modular but each subsystem is > not designed to work independently of the others so take out a specific > portion would involve quite a lot of work. There is a Qt backend but which > works at a very low level (drawing primitives) and all the translation from > the document tree to the graphics primitives (for displaying) and form user > input to document tree modifications is made in the texmacs source without > relying on the Qt framework. The document is stored as a tree. The typesetter > uses style information to convert the tree into a series of typographical > boxes which are renderer via translation into graphics primitives. This is > the big picture, of course the devil is in the details.... (macros, > variables, conversion of the tree into a linear structure for editing and > navigation purposes). > > Maybe Joris would like to add some more accurate info. In any case there are > some info for developers in the documentation which comes with the program. > > best > massimiliano > > > > > On 21 févr. 2011, at 19:16, Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Carter, Nathan <ncar...@bentley.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, it is very modular. You take TeXmacs, and you have the editor, >>>> without additional dependencies. >>>> >>>> I'm sorry for this joke ;-) >>> >>> Hehe. Maybe this means I need to clarify my original question. >>> >>> By "math editor" I mean *not* the document editor, but specifically that >>> portion of it that edits mathematical formulas. Or perhaps it's all the >>> same widget? If I'm not asking the right questions, feel free to correct >>> me. >>> >> >> I think a meaningful separation would be a major effort, but I'm not a >> developer so we better wait for their answer. >> It is still valuable to consider this although (or even if) a modular >> design would be worse than an integrated design. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Texmacs-dev mailing list >> Texmacs-dev@gnu.org >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Texmacs-dev mailing list > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
