Re: [Texmacs-dev] modularity of math editor

[Carter, Nathan]

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