🚀 go-pugleaf

In <GRODAN.92Apr8190652@cyklop.nada.kth.se> grodan@cyklop.nada.kth.se (Mats G L|fdahl) writes:

>Clicking on a summation sign would then not just insert a Sigma
>bitmap (or whatever) but actually enter the \sum control sequence into
>the TeX file. With the cursor on a symbol (e.g. the Sigma), clicking
>on a superscript symbol would perhaps move the cursor to the
>superscript position and allow you to build a superscript (or, in case
>of the \sum control sequence, an upper limit of the summation).

You can already do this kind of thing in Emacs; it's simply a matter of
writing the right lisp functions. And if you're wanting to produce a
structurally-marked-up formula \Sigma_{...}^{...}, you're best doing this
in the TeX source rather than the printed image.

>Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that changes in either window
>should reflect in changes in the TeX source rather than in the dvi
>format. 

Naturally---you don't actually want to change the dvi file. What I meant
was, you're trying to express your desired change to the TeX source in
terms of a transformation on the dvi file (or the printed page, if you
prefer). I believe the attempt is doomed to failure.

>What if you had a button that would pop up a window with a list of the
>parameters of the current paragraph (or the current list or the
>current environment)? Editing that list could put changes to those
>parameters in that paragraph (if necessary inside a group).

Did you mean to change just that instance of (say) the enumerate
environment, yielding a new environment to be used just once? Or did you
intend to change all enumerates, ie change the definition of \enumerate? Or
even, all lists, by changing a parameter like \itemsep? That's what I mean
by a loss of information in the DVI: each of these three changes would have
to be expressed in the same way.

>Aha, so you've had some experience with this kind of problems. What
>was it that made it impossible? I mean, if you had been working in a
>bit less "homegrown" environment, would you still not have been able
>to make something useful? 

The environment wasn't a problem; the tools were more primitive than they
are now (and it was only five years ago!), but it wasn't the tools that
were the limiting factor. The fundamental difficulties remain, and will
continue to do so.

Jeremy

*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Jeremy Gibbons <jeremy@cs.aukuni.ac.nz>  CS Dept, Auckland Univ, NZ |
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*