Re: [Texmacs-dev] Keybindings(2)

[Joris van der Hoeven]

> > On the other hand, we do have fast keystrokes for bold,
> > caligraphic and fraktur using F6, F7 and F8.
> > These are not yet available via A-* keys, but that *is* a plan.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand... would you _mix_ within the same modifier (A
> for example) the structural formatting *and* the visual formatting, with
> different keys?. I don't think it's a good idea to share the
> 'namespace'. 

No, I mean that, say, A-g (Greek) and F5 would be equivalent.

> For me physical formatting should be about as accesible as the preamble
> commands, because they should be used only in style files (at least I
> see no use of them out of that). I would give them a second-level
> keybinding (that is modifier -- physical selector -- bold). All I'm
> saying is with regard to the text mode, I am not sure about math, since
> it's so much more difficult to do hard-typing of mathematical
> expressions and since math is sometimes as much a drawing as a text.

Notice that a bold a in math mode is a *character* now.
You may also write using a bold face, but this is discouraged.

> My concern with this is that new texmacs users should use the editor in
> a structured manner. Other than that, if there are keys free and easily
> bindable to user-defined macros, the biggest problem is educational,
> since if one wants each first appearance of a technical term to appear
> in sans-serif one should do a \fa macro and assign, say, A-f to it.
> 
> What did you decide about evaluating the \ commands with space? this
> would encourage the use of macros, because it's a little faster to type.
> The problem arises only if whitespace is allowed in macro names.

That is OK, but it still has to be implemented.

> > > Regarding the math issue: I would like to have keybindings for
> > > \equation, \equation*, \eqnarray* and the forthcoming \eqnarray*. 
> > 
> > You may use "\ [ return" for \equation*.
> > You are right that we should have bindings for the others.
> > Which bindings would you suggest?
> 
> Still not sure:: A-[, A-], A-$... BTW is there any reason for choosing
> \equation over an one-line \eqnarray? The spacing seems more sensible in
> the second... Would it be possible(interesting to make \equation an
> special case of \eqnarray?

The spacing is not the same.

> > > Anyway, these are my dreams and I understand this poses a big problem
> > > for the typesetter, because heavy reprocessing would be needed to show
> > > the results while cycling. 
> > 
> > No, that is OK, since the enclosed structures (an equation or the text
> > of a theorem) are usually small. Possible exceptions are big itemize
> > or enumerate lists, but one or two pages are retypeset reasonably fast
> > too anyway (about 0.25 sec on a 600MHz machine).
> 
> Great, what about the renumbering of sections/figures/equations of the
> document?. You can delay it I guess, till the affected part is visible.

Delaying is more difficult, but the rewriters project will allow to
recompute no more than necessary.