[TxMt] Re: Regarding the LaTeX bundle

[Max Lein]

 > On Sep 11, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Max Lein wrote:
 > 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:
Will do.

 > 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.
Ok, I'm no expert, but I figure this is what many, many people want  
to do. Perhaps you could just list these commands in a separate file  
and include that file appropriately?

 > 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.
That would be great.

 > That's exactly why I advocate the use of \( \).
 >
 > (we could actually make it so that pressing the dollar sign produces
 > the \( \) pair instead ;). )
;-)

 > 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).
True. Again, another quick and dirty hack by me ;-)

 > 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,
Nah, I think those people who want to change it, can do so easily.

 > 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 $).
Well, we do what we are used to in the end ;-)
I use align, because I got used to the way it, ahem, aligns formulas.

 > 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 $$..$$
 >
 > Working on it. Actually the grammar will undergo a series of changes
 > in the next couple of weeks probably.
Great :-)
You can also (ab)use me as a beta tester.

 > I've just added command for part, chapter, paragraph, subparagraph.
 > The triggers now are:
Thanks a lot.

 > Also, all these commands now create the (fold) (end) comments
 > described earlier, so they would fold and that should keep Jenny  
happy.
Even better!

 > Further, they have been designed so that you could execute them with
 > a selection, and then they would wrap around that selection.
You thought of everything ;-)

 > 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.
No sure, but that's what in principle the closing tag feature should  
be for ...

 > 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.
I gotta give this a try.

 > 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.
Yes, this would complement written documentation nicely.
 > 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.
I don't think this is something you can keep up with the increasing  
complexity. Thus, I don't think it's a good idea to constrain  
yourself in such a way.

Instead, you could design one section to be read thoroughly and then  
let the rest be what it is: a manual.

 > How about a cheatsheet instead? A single page containing all the
 > necessary information, in the form of a pdf?
Sounds like a good start. Refer to the appropriate sections in the  
Help as well, then people can go on reading.

 > 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?
I would say both. Take a look what I did, I hacked your bundle to get  
the functionality I want -- at the expense that it might break in the  
future.

So I would actually do both -- if time permits.

 > > 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.
No, I haven't. You should definitely link them in your help.

Max