First of all, one noob question: how do I make sure my mail is recognized as a reply to an existing post in the mailing list? I have tried clicking in the e-mail address on the mailing list page which automatically generates an e-mail with the correct header … but usually it isn't recognized as a reply to existing posts :-/
Thanks ;-)
(i) I can provide you with a list of `official' LaTeX commands
if needed.
Obviously, something similar should be implemented in math mode as well (start with dark red which changes to red once a command is recognized).
allan: (i) I prefer that as well — if we can get a list, that’d
be
great!
me: I agree too. Max (and anyone else as well), if you provide us with the commands, for within math and out of math, then we'll add them in.
Ok, I will compile a list over the course of the week. Basically, I will start by copying the standard commands from the various handbooks.
Please document how to add your own commands to that list! (E. g. I have created commands like \norm, \scpro (scalar product), \ket, \bra, \C, \R, etc.)
allan: (ii) this is because $ is a smart-typing pair, and it finds that there is a “starting” $ outside the screen — not sure how to best address that (probably we want to keep it a smart typing
pair) Definitely, definitely, definitely keep smart-pairing $s, it was my #1 syntax error with TeXShop and very tedious sometimes to find the erroneous line of code.
(iii) Footnotes and marginpars should be marked within the text; perhaps the footnote's/marginpar's text could even be folded (not sure if automatic foldmark recognition works on a bundle level).
allan: (iii) marking: yes, folding: we can’t do w/o having the braces align
me: The text in the footnote gets a scope of meta.footnote.latex So if you add that scope to your coloring theme and add some color to it, you'll get highlighted footnotes. Not immediately possible for marginpars, but we are thinking of matching those as well and giving them some scope extending both footnotes and marginpars, so that you could color both of them at the same time.
Yes, it is immediately possible. I've just added marginpar to the footnote environment (so its scope is now both footnotes and marginpars alike), took about 10 seconds :-)
I already figured folding would be a more intricate matter.
Update: marginpars are now matched with scope meta.paragraph.marginpar.latex, so you can color them as you like.
(iv) Use input instead of include when dragging a .tex document into another: afaik include is deprecated and input is preferred instead. You cannot `include' some bundles for instance (diagxy comes to mind), you have to use input instead.
allan: (iv) probably then we should even markup include as invalid.deprecated
me: I don't think \include is deprecated. I use \include for different chapter of a book etc, and it does a number of special things like clear all the floats, start on a new page, generate separate aux files etc.
input also creates separate aux files. I just ran into some problems with include and have used input ever since. Page breaks are not a concern since I usually have separate files for each chapter -- the chapter command takes care of the page break.
Of course, you can easily change this in your own copy, by opening the bundle editor and finding the appropriate drag command. All you have to do is change the \\include that appears there to \\input.
Done.
(v) Forget about the deprecated math environments `[ … ]' and
`\
( … )', just remove them from your bundle. Guidelines by
relevant
journals suggest to use specific environments anyway (align for instance).
allan: (v) I’m all for removing stuff, especially when
deprecated ;)
me: I would need some stronger evidence that it is deprecated. As far as I understand, the alternative to ( ) would be $ $, and I don't see what advantages that has except that it is much harder to parse the file looking for math in it, and if you miss one of the $ you might not find out until much much later.
As for [, ], I again don't think they are deprecated, but I would love to be proven wrong. The only alternative I see is \begin {equation*}, which requires the amsmath package. I might possibly agree with you that in the context of writing math papers for submission to journals, one might want to avoid [, ], (though still I would need to see some strong evidence for that), but I don't see why I shouldn't be using it in the notes for my students for instance. Replacing them all by \begin{equation*} is a single search and replace anyway. (Note to self: Actually, having a command that toggles the various math environments might not be a bad idea at
all.) I usually use align and align*. I have never personally used [ … ] and I have seen only one person use it, and that person still writes his (brilliant) papers in plain TeX.
It doesn't really bother me if you keep it, but I just thought that we could very well eliminate everything which is superfluous in a way.
Do you have references to these guidelines of these journals (including non-math/physics journals)?
One of the guidelines I use is the revtex guidelines which is used for a wide number of journals, including Phys. Rev. A-E and Phys. Rev. Lett.
(vi) Inline formulas should have a grayish background so it's easier to see where formulas begin and where they end. (This one is also important to me.)
allan: (vi) that’d be a theme-thing, as long as the grammar marks them up
me: Do you want the background for inline formulas to be different than the one for multiline formulas? Because as things are already, you can target the scope math.tex in your theme, and that would color all math however you tell it to.
Yes, I want it to be different. I add a commented line above and below the align environment, i. e. % \begin{align} formulas \end{align} % So I don't need any background. In either case, it is desirable to have different settings for inline formulas and displayed equations.
(vii) You already have tab triggers for section, subsection and subsubsection, so how come chapter is missing?
allan: (vii) oversight (and we rarely need it)
me: Basically, initially we were trying to keep the number of snippets at a bare minimum because of the way they were showing up in the menu, as a flat list. On top of that, most of those can instead be accomplished via the “Insert Command…” command, along with customizing it through the LaTeX Configuration file, so the other maintainers had a hard time even convincing me to keep the section ones in. Now that we can create submenus, we've toyed with the idea of adding more snippets, so any ideas on what other snippets to include are welcome.
I know I can add it. However that is something I definitely think is missing. \chapter is one of the most basic commands in TeX and I would strongly suggest to add it.
(viii) A way to execute bibtex (and pdflatex twice to see whether all additional citations have been included).
allan: (viii) latexmk.pl should do that — maybe we should make this the default, not sure if that would bother anyone (maybe some workflows would mean much more time typesetting)
me: latexmk.pl will actually do a lot more for you. The Help file should describe how to set it up. I'd personally prefer not to have it as the default. It is however easy to set it in your system.
I think I wasn't expressing myself clearly here: when you run bibtex via the LaTeX bundle, it does just that. However, I think it is a lot more useful if you actually pdflatex the document twice and display the document so you can check whether or not it worked.
(ix) Closing environments: when I manually type \begin{environment} and then close the environment, the `\end{environment}' which is added is indented like the text within the environment. Hence, TextMate's code folding does not recognize the block.
allan: (ix) http://macromates.com/ticket/show?ticket_id=B34CCC0C -- the request might be granted, but use begin⇥ or ⌘{ until then
me: just follow the workaround suggested in that ticket (and most importantly, don't manually type \begin{environment}).
No, I usually don't. But sometimes I need to break a displayed formula into two, I use that command.
Now concerning the Help. The help is nicely structured, although I miss a nice webpage with the key features of your bundle. That would have helped me to use more of the functions included in your bundle.
Hm, that was actually partly our intent with rewriting the help file this way. To make it easy to find out how to do stuff. Looking at the bundle is of course the best way to find out what commands are available. How is the help lacking in showing you what the bundle can do?
(i) A glossary of TM_LATEX_BLABLA variables. That would be really helpful, especially for people who just want to check out what you can do with the LaTeX bundle.
There are basically only five such variables, most of them having to do with more particular workflow setups:
TM_LATEX_VIEWER if you don't want to use the built in previewer TM_LATEX_ERRLVL if you want some finer control on what errors show up TM_LATEX_COMPILER if you want to use latexmk.pl TM_LATEX_OPTIONS for any options you might want to add to the command line call to the compiler.
and finally, TM_LATEX_MASTER, the only one of more frequent use, when setting that a master document should be used for the compiling.
That needs to be documented in the form of a howto.
(ii) Overview over key functions (auto completion of citations,
etc.).
Isn't the explanation in section 5.2 of the manual adequate for that? In general that's the purpose of the entire section 5. In what ways is that failing?
In the way that people like me don't read the help until section 5.2 to discover new features. I know I sometimes should, but it's just the way it is. In this way, I would suggest to add one section in the very beginning (section 1.2 or so) about basic features. If they are hidden in section 5.2, fewer people will actually use them -- which is a pity.
I have given the help some more thought and I think that also one chapter about customizing the LaTeX bundle is missing. Somehow I haven't come across a good documentation on how to edit bundles, something like a HowTo is definitely missing.
For me, the most helpful kind of documentation is one that explains by example (e. g. Samba by Example). So I would suggest to write HowTo sections on `Getting Started', `Big LaTeX Projects', `Customizing The LaTeX Bundle'. I would be willing to make additions of my own.
Ok, that's all for now.
Max
Hi Max,
First of all, one noob question: how do I make sure my mail is recognized as a reply to an existing post in the mailing list? I have tried clicking in the e-mail address on the mailing list page which automatically generates an e-mail with the correct header … but usually it isn't recognized as a reply to existing posts :-/
Hitting the "Reply" button on the email you'd like to reply to should do the trick :-)
-steve
On Sep 11, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Max Lein wrote:
allan: (i) I prefer that as well — if we can get a list, that’d be great!
me: I agree too. Max (and anyone else as well), if you provide us with the commands, for within math and out of math, then we'll add them in.
Ok, I will compile a list over the course of the week. Basically, I will start by copying the standard commands from the various handbooks.
Just send them to me (or the list) when you are done. These can easily be included. The custom one are a bit more difficult:
Please document how to add your own commands to that list! (E. g. I have created commands like \norm, \scpro (scalar product), \ket, \bra, \C, \R, etc.)
This won't be very easy to do, we'll have to figure out the best way to do it in terms of making sure the user stays up to date with newer versions of the bundle. We could tell you how to edit the language grammar to add these things, but that's not very easy to do and results in the user having local modifications to the bundle which might result in them not seeing any official changes that happen to the grammar.
One thing that can be done now, is that you can create a new language that basically has the extra commands, and then includes the latex language, and you would be using that new language instead. I could offer a template language and tell you what you need to edit where. However, I would consider that only a temporary fix, because my understanding is that the next major version of TextMate will have tools that will make this customization process a lot easier/powerful.
allan: (ii) this is because $ is a smart-typing pair, and it finds that there is a “starting” $ outside the screen — not sure how to best address that (probably we want to keep it a smart typing pair)
Definitely, definitely, definitely keep smart-pairing $s, it was my #1 syntax error with TeXShop and very tedious sometimes to find the erroneous line of code.
That's exactly why I advocate the use of ( ).
(we could actually make it so that pressing the dollar sign produces the ( ) pair instead ;). )
(iii) Footnotes and marginpars should be marked within the text; perhaps the footnote's/marginpar's text could even be folded (not sure if automatic foldmark recognition works on a bundle level).
allan: (iii) marking: yes, folding: we can’t do w/o having the braces align
me: The text in the footnote gets a scope of meta.footnote.latex So if you add that scope to your coloring theme and add some color to it, you'll get highlighted footnotes. Not immediately possible for marginpars, but we are thinking of matching those as well and giving them some scope extending both footnotes and marginpars, so that you could color both of them at the same time.
Yes, it is immediately possible. I've just added marginpar to the footnote environment (so its scope is now both footnotes and marginpars alike), took about 10 seconds :-)
I meant it was not possible without editing the language grammar. However I did add yesterday marginpar as a separate scope. It is meta.paragraph.margin.latex (not meta.paragraph.marginpar.latex as I mentioned in my last email).
(iv) Use input instead of include when dragging a .tex document into another: afaik include is deprecated and input is preferred instead. You cannot `include' some bundles for instance (diagxy comes to mind), you have to use input instead.
allan: (iv) probably then we should even markup include as invalid.deprecated
me: I don't think \include is deprecated. I use \include for different chapter of a book etc, and it does a number of special things like clear all the floats, start on a new page, generate separate aux files etc.
input also creates separate aux files. I just ran into some problems with include and have used input ever since. Page breaks are not a concern since I usually have separate files for each chapter -- the chapter command takes care of the page break.
Can input do selective includes, like via \includeonly? [http:// www.eng.cam.ac.uk/help/tpl/textprocessing/teTeX/latex/latex2e-html/ ltx-245.html]
I was actually thinking, that one could simply duplicate the include drag command, and have a new one with input. Now, when you drag a file, you would be getting a menu with two options, and selecting one of them (with arrows or 1/2 numbers) would do the corresponding thing. We could do the same thing for graphics,
(v) Forget about the deprecated math environments `[ … ]' and `\ ( … )', just remove them from your bundle. Guidelines by relevant journals suggest to use specific environments anyway (align for instance).
allan: (v) I’m all for removing stuff, especially when deprecated ;)
me: I would need some stronger evidence that it is deprecated. As far as I understand, the alternative to ( ) would be $ $, and I don't see what advantages that has except that it is much harder to parse the file looking for math in it, and if you miss one of the $ you might not find out until much much later.
As for [, ], I again don't think they are deprecated, but I would love to be proven wrong. The only alternative I see is \begin {equation*}, which requires the amsmath package. I might possibly agree with you that in the context of writing math papers for submission to journals, one might want to avoid [, ], (though still I would need to see some strong evidence for that), but I don't see why I shouldn't be using it in the notes for my students for instance. Replacing them all by \begin{equation*} is a single search and replace anyway. (Note to self: Actually, having a command that toggles the various math environments might not be a bad idea at all.)
I usually use align and align*. I have never personally used [ … ] and I have seen only one person use it, and that person still writes his (brilliant) papers in plain TeX.
It doesn't really bother me if you keep it, but I just thought that we could very well eliminate everything which is superfluous in a way.
Do you have references to these guidelines of these journals (including non-math/physics journals)?
One of the guidelines I use is the revtex guidelines which is used for a wide number of journals, including Phys. Rev. A-E and Phys. Rev. Lett.
I was just looking at: http://authors.aps.org/revtex4/auguide.ps Section 6.4 explicitly mentions using [, ] for unnumbered equations. And nowhere is it mentioned that (, ) should not be used (though it does mention $).
The AMS-LaTeX guidelines do make it clear that both options are fine: [ftp://ftp.ams.org/pub/tex/doc/amsmath/short-math-guide.pdf]
The only thing they discurage is the use of the eqnarray environment. They also recommend not using $$..$$
(vi) Inline formulas should have a grayish background so it's easier to see where formulas begin and where they end. (This one is also important to me.)
allan: (vi) that’d be a theme-thing, as long as the grammar marks them up
me: Do you want the background for inline formulas to be different than the one for multiline formulas? Because as things are already, you can target the scope math.tex in your theme, and that would color all math however you tell it to.
Yes, I want it to be different. I add a commented line above and below the align environment, i. e. % \begin{align} formulas \end{align} % So I don't need any background. In either case, it is desirable to have different settings for inline formulas and displayed equations.
Working on it. Actually the grammar will undergo a series of changes in the next couple of weeks probably.
(vii) You already have tab triggers for section, subsection and subsubsection, so how come chapter is missing?
allan: (vii) oversight (and we rarely need it)
me: Basically, initially we were trying to keep the number of snippets at a bare minimum because of the way they were showing up in the menu, as a flat list. On top of that, most of those can instead be accomplished via the “Insert Command…” command, along with customizing it through the LaTeX Configuration file, so the other maintainers had a hard time even convincing me to keep the section ones in. Now that we can create submenus, we've toyed with the idea of adding more snippets, so any ideas on what other snippets to include are welcome.
I know I can add it. However that is something I definitely think is missing. \chapter is one of the most basic commands in TeX and I would strongly suggest to add it.
I've just added command for part, chapter, paragraph, subparagraph. The triggers now are:
part -> part cha -> chapter sec -> section sub -> subsection subs -> subsubsection par -> paragraph subp -> subparagraph
Also, all these commands now create the (fold) (end) comments described earlier, so they would fold and that should keep Jenny happy.
Further, they have been designed so that you could execute them with a selection, and then they would wrap around that selection.
(viii) A way to execute bibtex (and pdflatex twice to see whether all additional citations have been included).
allan: (viii) latexmk.pl should do that — maybe we should make this the default, not sure if that would bother anyone (maybe some workflows would mean much more time typesetting)
me: latexmk.pl will actually do a lot more for you. The Help file should describe how to set it up. I'd personally prefer not to have it as the default. It is however easy to set it in your system.
I think I wasn't expressing myself clearly here: when you run bibtex via the LaTeX bundle, it does just that. However, I think it is a lot more useful if you actually pdflatex the document twice and display the document so you can check whether or not it worked.
This sounds more like what latexmk.pl was made for. Running bibtex is exactly that.
(ix) Closing environments: when I manually type \begin{environment} and then close the environment, the `\end{environment}' which is added is indented like the text within the environment. Hence, TextMate's code folding does not recognize the block.
allan: (ix) http://macromates.com/ticket/show?ticket_id=B34CCC0C -- the request might be granted, but use begin⇥ or ⌘{ until then
me: just follow the workaround suggested in that ticket (and most importantly, don't manually type \begin{environment}).
No, I usually don't. But sometimes I need to break a displayed formula into two, I use that command.
I would do: select the second part of the formula: press cmd-x, move down until out of the environment, type eq (or the right shortcut) followed by cmd-{ to generate a new equation environment, and then press cmd-v.
Alternatively, you can again select the second part of the formula, use ctrl-cmd-down arrow to move it out, and then use shift-ctrl-cmd-W to wrap it in a new environment.
The advantage of the second method is that it does not affect what is in the pasteboard.
Now concerning the Help. The help is nicely structured, although I miss a nice webpage with the key features of your bundle. That would have helped me to use more of the functions included in your bundle.
Hm, that was actually partly our intent with rewriting the help file this way. To make it easy to find out how to do stuff. Looking at the bundle is of course the best way to find out what commands are available. How is the help lacking in showing you what the bundle can do?
(i) A glossary of TM_LATEX_BLABLA variables. That would be really helpful, especially for people who just want to check out what you can do with the LaTeX bundle.
There are basically only five such variables, most of them having to do with more particular workflow setups:
TM_LATEX_VIEWER if you don't want to use the built in previewer TM_LATEX_ERRLVL if you want some finer control on what errors show up TM_LATEX_COMPILER if you want to use latexmk.pl TM_LATEX_OPTIONS for any options you might want to add to the command line call to the compiler.
and finally, TM_LATEX_MASTER, the only one of more frequent use, when setting that a master document should be used for the compiling.
That needs to be documented in the form of a howto. ( I am seeing now you've mentioned some further down.)
That is a good idea. Please suggest a list of specific howto topics. I'll see if I can also do a screencast demonstrating a typical complete workflow.
(ii) Overview over key functions (auto completion of citations, etc.).
Isn't the explanation in section 5.2 of the manual adequate for that? In general that's the purpose of the entire section 5. In what ways is that failing?
In the way that people like me don't read the help until section 5.2 to discover new features. I know I sometimes should, but it's just the way it is. In this way, I would suggest to add one section in the very beginning (section 1.2 or so) about basic features. If they are hidden in section 5.2, fewer people will actually use them -- which is a pity.
I guess that's why we have the outline at the very beginning, which links to the subsequent sections. In the first draft of the help there was such a thing, but then it was removed. We were trying to keep the size of the LaTeX file a small as possible, so that users could actually read the entire thing.
How about a cheatsheet instead? A single page containing all the necessary information, in the form of a pdf?
I have given the help some more thought and I think that also one chapter about customizing the LaTeX bundle is missing. Somehow I haven't come across a good documentation on how to edit bundles, something like a HowTo is definitely missing.
Allan and I both agree with that. This is something that's missing. However, a lot of the customization of the LaTeX bundle should be done via the LaTeX Configuration file instead. What kinds of customizations did you have in mind? Things like creating a new snippet or a new command, or changing a current command? Or more deep things related to the syntax?
For me, the most helpful kind of documentation is one that explains by example (e. g. Samba by Example). So I would suggest to write HowTo sections on `Getting Started', `Big LaTeX Projects', `Customizing The LaTeX Bundle'. I would be willing to make additions of my own.
I take it you have seen the posts here: http://skiadas.dcostanet.net/ afterthought/list-of-my-textmate-pages/ They are a bit outdated I must say, need some new ones. Not sure if they count as HowTo's.
Ok, that's all for now.
Max
Haris
On 12 sept. 06, at 08:31, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:
That's exactly why I advocate the use of ( ).
(we could actually make it so that pressing the dollar sign produces the ( ) pair instead ;). )
This would be nice ;-) I used to use ( ) all the time, but I don't like how it becomes () when I type in (because of auto-closing the bracket).
Alan
-- Alan Schmitt http://alan.petitepomme.net/
The hacker: someone who figured things out and made something cool happen. .O. ..O OOO
Before I answer this, let me take the opportunity to mention one big change that Michael Sheets just implemented, namely:
Root scopes of the various TeX/LaTeX grammars changed to bring them in-line with each other. TeX – text.tex, LaTeX – text.tex.latex, TeX Math – text.tex.math, Beamer – text.tex.latex.beamer, BibTeX – text.bibtex, and LaTeX Log – text.log.latex
What this means in practice is that any customizations you had in any way, which used the LaTeX grammar, and probably had a scope selector of text.latex, should have that selector renamed to text.tex instead. We apologize for the inconvenience, but there are a series of technical, as well as TeXnical, reasons why this is better.
And now, we resume with our regular program... On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:33 AM, Alan Schmitt wrote:
On 12 sept. 06, at 08:31, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:
That's exactly why I advocate the use of ( ).
(we could actually make it so that pressing the dollar sign produces the ( ) pair instead ;). )
This would be nice ;-) I used to use ( ) all the time, but I don't like how it becomes () when I type in (because of auto- closing the bracket).
Well, I was actually kidding, but if you do want to do this the simplest thing would be to create a new snippet with key equivalent $, and with text: “( $TM_SELECTED_TEXT$1 )” without the quotes. Then you can tab out of the math environment, provided you don't use a different snippet while in there. This also allows you to enclose something in a math environment simply by selecting it and then pressing $.
The only thing remaining is an easier way to get out of the math environment, perhaps by pressing $ anywhere in an existing math environment. You could that by a macro that searches for a regular expression (?<=\))
This is just an idea, it has some problems that would need to be smoothed out. First of all, inserting an actual dollar sign is more difficult, but we could allow it by having the above not work after a slash (for escaped dollar signs) and not work in verbatim environment. (see http://macromates.com/textmate/manual/ scope_selectors#scope_selectors, section 13.3)
second, I often find that while in math, I use $ to split a math formula in two. So perhaps inside a math environment it might be best for $ to do that.
All these would, if they become official in any way, go into the separate LaTeX Experimental bundle, so that people who do not want them could disable them.
Another simpler thing you can do, which doesn't conflict with the use of $, is to create a snippet, with tab trigger (, which would insert “\( $0 \”, without the quotes. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Try it out and see if it works. You would need to press a tab after the ( of course. One could instead set the snippet to have a key equivalent of (, have a scope that only triggers it when the caret is after a \ (which is actually not too easy to do now that I think about it), and have its text be “( $1 \)” without the quotes.
Alan
Haris
On 12 sept. 06, at 15:17, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:
Well, I was actually kidding, but if you do want to do this the simplest thing would be to create a new snippet with key equivalent $, and with text: “( $TM_SELECTED_TEXT$1 )” without the quotes. Then you can tab out of the math environment, provided you don't use a different snippet while in there. This also allows you to enclose something in a math environment simply by selecting it and then pressing $.
The only thing remaining is an easier way to get out of the math environment, perhaps by pressing $ anywhere in an existing math environment. You could that by a macro that searches for a regular expression (?<=\))
This is just an idea, it has some problems that would need to be smoothed out. First of all, inserting an actual dollar sign is more difficult, but we could allow it by having the above not work after a slash (for escaped dollar signs) and not work in verbatim environment. (see http://macromates.com/textmate/manual/ scope_selectors#scope_selectors, section 13.3)
second, I often find that while in math, I use $ to split a math formula in two. So perhaps inside a math environment it might be best for $ to do that.
All these would, if they become official in any way, go into the separate LaTeX Experimental bundle, so that people who do not want them could disable them.
Another simpler thing you can do, which doesn't conflict with the use of $, is to create a snippet, with tab trigger (, which would insert “\( $0 \”, without the quotes. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Try it out and see if it works. You would need to press a tab after the ( of course. One could instead set the snippet to have a key equivalent of (, have a scope that only triggers it when the caret is after a \ (which is actually not too easy to do now that I think about it), and have its text be “( $1 \)” without the quotes.
Thanks for these suggestions. I'm still very new to TextMate customization (I only created a small bundle for some very specific files I often edit), but I'll definitely explore these solutions.
Thanks again,
Alan
-- Alan Schmitt http://alan.petitepomme.net/
The hacker: someone who figured things out and made something cool happen. .O. ..O OOO
On Sep 12, 2006, at 6:17 AM, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:
Root scopes of the various TeX/LaTeX grammars changed to bring them in-line with each other. TeX – text.tex, LaTeX – text.tex.latex, TeX Math – text.tex.math, Beamer – text.tex.latex.beamer, BibTeX – text.bibtex, and LaTeX Log – text.log.latex
I'm catching up with this change (and the broader LaTeX discussion) today and think I'm encountering a hiccup: I don't have cite completion working any longer. Has anyone else encountered this? (Completing \refs seems to work, but not any of \cite).
Also, the new change/toggle * on environment command is slick, Haris. Any chance of it being able to modify the nearest section command above the caret, as well?
-Alan
On Sep 13, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Alan Schussman wrote:
I'm catching up with this change (and the broader LaTeX discussion) today and think I'm encountering a hiccup: I don't have cite completion working any longer. Has anyone else encountered this? (Completing \refs seems to work, but not any of \cite).
My bad, had forgotten to switch one scope. Should be fine now. I decided to rename meta.cite to meta.citation, and forgot to do it everywhere.
Also, the new change/toggle * on environment command is slick, Haris. Any chance of it being able to modify the nearest section command above the caret, as well?
Yes that should be doable, at least in the case where the (fold), (end) pair is used, once we capture that case in the grammar. The reason it works with environments is because I can set the input to the current scope, so provided each entire section gets its own scope, it should be doable. Similarly, the Change Environment command could be made to work for sections as well, allowing you to quickly change a section to, say, a subsection, with automatic renaming of the label prefix as well as the % section (end) part.
-Alan
Haris
I caught one more small bug with the recent changes to the LaTeX scope: Looks like the Run BibTeX command scope wasn't updated -- it's still set to text.latex instead of text.tex.latex.
Cheers- -Alan
On 16/9/2006, at 0:40, Alan Schussman wrote:
I caught one more small bug with the recent changes to the LaTeX scope: Looks like the Run BibTeX command scope wasn't updated -- it's still set to text.latex instead of text.tex.latex.
% cd /Applications/TextMate.app/Contents/SharedSupport/Bundles/ Latex.tmbundle/Commands % plutil -convert xml1 Run\ BibTeX.plist % pl < Run\ BibTeX.plist|grep scope scope = "text.tex.latex";
Seems to have the proper scope (selector). Likely you have a local change or so?
-
Alan Schmitt -
Alan Schussman -
Allan Odgaard -
Charilaos Skiadas -
Max Lein -
Steve Lianoglou