[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Texmacs-dev] modularity of math editor
From: |
Carter, Nathan |
Subject: |
Re: [Texmacs-dev] modularity of math editor |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:14:31 -0500 |
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 <address@hidden> 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
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Texmacs-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev