From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Felix E. Klee" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Hiding references when editing LaTeX? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:33:24 +0100 Organization: (Posted via) INKA e.V. http://www.inka.de/ Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1046435700 10916 80.91.224.249 (28 Feb 2003 12:35:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:35:00 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ojj8-0002pw-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:34:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18ojjQ-00079x-08 for gnu-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:35:16 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!inka.de!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 36 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: puric.inka.de Original-X-Trace: sapa.inka.de 1046435604 17603 193.197.184.17 (28 Feb 2003 12:33:24 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@inka.de Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Feb 2003 12:33:24 GMT User-Agent: KNode/0.7.1 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:110717 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:7218 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:7218 David Kastrup wrote: >> Is this really neccessary? Preview-LaTeX takes for example "\emph{bla bla >> bla}" and passes it to an external tool, latex, which creates an image >> that replaces the corresponding text. Wouldn't it be possible to let the >> user specify another tool (probably a simple lisp function) instead that >> takes "\emph{bla bla bla}", processes it and creates soem text (eg. "*bla >> bla bla*", faces might be problematic) that is used to replace "\emph{bla >> bla bla}"? > > That would be close to useless. The main problem with preview-latex > is that images themselves are not editable, and the larger the unit > becomes (like a whole figure), the less convenient for editing. When > you enter such an image, it gets replaced by its source text. You > can already let preview-latex let an environment like \emph be > replaced by a _graphic_. The main problem is not that it is a > graphic, but that you can't edit it because the relation between its > looks and the source text can't be reestablished, and that its line > breaks are completely different and so on. > > You demand something that has all the editing disadvantages of an > image without an obvious advantage to show. Here are some advantages for displaying text instead of images: 1. It is faster. 2. It might be more readable when the face that is used is similar or identical to the default face. 3. Text can be wrapped when a line gets too long. > No, if this feature is supposed to be usable separately, it must have > a way to specify text properties affixed to the source text instead > of merely a replacement text. That would be a cool feature, but is not absolutely neccessary, IMHO. Felix