Re: x-symbol?

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

m_mommer@yahoo.com (Mario S. Mommer) writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>> With regard to the optic sugar, you might \usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
>> in connection with some utf-8 special characters, namely let LaTeX cater
>> for the conversion.
>
> Do you know of any resource that describes that?

I'd guess the inputenc documentation.

> I presume one would have some input method producing the (for example)
> nabla in utf8, and then some macro that translates to \nabla. Is that
> what you mean?

For example.  In Emacs, the TeX input method will produce, when you type
\nabla, "∇" in your text.

>> For the visual component, I consider X-Symbol's approach a bit too
>> invasive on the buffer text: if things go wrong, you lose original
>> input.
>
> In all the years i've used it, i did not observe that I lost input. I
> mean, yes, if you for example delete an alpha character, all six
> letters of the \alpha disappear, but that has never bothered me.

It has happened to me quite a bit that something went wrong and the file
contained unconverted material.  When you were lucky, some code
conversions made it possible to salvage.

>> preview-latex's own way of inserting graphics instead, however,
>> appears like overkill for the same application space.  A middle ground
>> would be the use of display properties substituting appropriate Unicode
>> characters, but not graphics.
>
> But I think that is exactly what x-symbol does.

No, it replaces the buffer text instead of changing its display.

> It has a special font for some characters that seem not be in Unicode,
> but that is about it.

It works with special fonts and codings for other characters as well IIRC.

> It does include small thumbnails of graphics included with
> \includegraphics (which btw, is of very little use).

I don't consider this part of its defining feature set.  It's more like
a completely separate functionality.

>> The work still has to be done, but once it _has_ been done, chances
>> are that it will at least be guarded somewhat against bitrot.
>
> Here is me crossing my fingers :-)
>
> I'll try to contact the original author. Maybe assigning fsf the
> copyright would be a first step...

If you can't get anybody willing to work on the code, it would be sort
of pointless.  Sure, it is a kind of insurance against some programmer
eventually being able and willing to work on it, and the original author
being no longer available or willing to bother.  But I think it might be
smarter if you'd try to see whether you can find somebody willing to
work on this first.

-- 
David Kastrup