texmacs-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Texmacs-dev] Explanation for patch #2590


From: David Allouche
Subject: Re: [Texmacs-dev] Explanation for patch #2590
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:22:41 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i

On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:10:42PM -0700, Nix wrote:
> In 1.0.3.1 the drd-dispatcher called "tmtex-methods%" says:
> ...
> (paragraph tmtex-paragraph)
> ...

> 
> Thus, when tmtex-apply encounters a key of "paragraph", it calls
> tmtex-paragraph.
> 
> In 1.0.3.2 "tmtex-methods%" originally said:
> ...
> (para tmtex-para)
> ...
> 
> Thus, when the "obsure (sic.) primitive, currently only used in the
> typesetting of headers and footers" is encountered, tmtex-para is
> executed.  But the dispatcher contains nothing about the more frequently
> used and far more important "paragraph" key ! So, paragraphs are now
> translated into LaTeX as
> 
> \paragraph{The entire contents of the paragraph}
> 
> instead of a mere double carriage return !  This is the ensuing havoc.

You look deeply confused about the meaning of the "paragraph" tag.

The tags "paragraph" and "subparagraph" (search the doc for
"paragraph", it is mentioned in section-latex-dtd.en.tm) are sectioning
markup. They are similar to "section" in that only the paragraph heading
should be put inside the tag, but they are inline markup: the rest of
the paragraph should be placed on the same logical paragraph (i.e. same
subtree of a "document" node).

So, (paragraph "The entire paragraph") is just wrong.

Instead, write: (concat (paragraph "Gnus") " are herbivorous animals,
living in vast herds in the african savannah.").

> 
> To make things worse, (tmtex-para) is no different from
> (tmtex-paragraph) from 1.0.3.1 .  Thus, headers and footers would be
> handled like regular paragraphs.

Headers and footers do not appear textually in the converted
document. Even when they are defined explicitely, the definition does
not contain a "para" tag, but a "concat" at most.

> So, perhaps the answer is not to replace 
> 
> (paragraph tmtex-paragraph)
> 
> by
> 
> (para tmtex-para)
> 
> but instead have both
> 
> (para tmtex-para)
> (paragraph tmtex-paragraph)

"paragraph" tags are (at least, should be) handled by the same
mechanism as "section", "subsection", etc. There is not point in adding
special logic for paragraph tags.

-- 
                                                            -- ddaa




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]