reza <r...@housseini.me> writes: First of all, thanks a lot for digging into ob-latex! This file has not been touched seriously since 7 years ago and the last major change is 8 years ago (510e70379).
> When having a look at the code inside ob-latex.el I also encountered a > few stuff which made me wondering: > > 1. png generation is done with the preview code inside org.el > (org-create-formula-image), there is also a perfectly fine svg preview > function but this does not get used for the svg extension which does the > svg conversion without any external tools like inkscape (see > https://github.com/bzg/org-mode/blob/main/lisp/ob-latex.el#L156 and > https://github.com/bzg/org-mode/blob/main/lisp/org.el#L3181) This, and many other oddities are likely related to the fact that org.el preview code is more up-to-date, while ob-latex have not been changed, including its assumptions about org.el's LaTeX preview. I suspect that some features in org.el were implemented separately, but did not get integrated with ob-latex. > 2. there is a tikz extension switch which does insert the code verbatim, > which in my opinion does create a whole bunch of problems (backend > dependency issues). Not to mention that it also mimics behaviour which > is reserved for the header :results (see > https://github.com/bzg/org-mode/blob/main/lisp/ob-latex.el#L177). Could you please elaborate? > 3. there is a html extension switch with an unclear purpose to me (in > what scenario would you want to produce an html file?). It also has some > strange (and contradicting) checking if an svg or an html file got > produced. As far as I can tell this code never gets executed and is > therefore pointless (see > https://github.com/bzg/org-mode/blob/main/lisp/ob-latex.el#L181). Well. We do not remove existing features unless there is strong justifications. See https://bzg.fr/en/the-software-maintainers-pledge/ As for the contradicting checking, it is likely a classic copy-paste error when html and svg branches of the code got split. > 4. the whole pdf generation looks like duplicate code which is already > done in other parts of the code base (ox-latex.el and for the svg > extension) it ais also not using the variable org-babel-latex-begin-env > and org-babel-latex-end-env (see > https://github.com/bzg/org-mode/blob/main/lisp/ob-latex.el#L225). Again, I am not sure here. It is a very old code. My best guess is that it was developer prior to ox-latex. The best hint I can provide is https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/languages/ob-doc-LaTeX.html that should document some details of the logic. > I don't want to criticize anyone, I just want to find answers for in my > opinion some strange decisions. Criticism is welcome as long as it is aiming to improve Org. No worries. If you want to dig further, I can also suggest to use git blame and dig into mailing list messages from Eric Schulte, the original author of ob-latex. > My propositions for refactoring is: > > 1. use the svg preview code for svg generation (and therefore ditching > the whole imagemagick headers) Note that imagemagick argument does more than you may expect. For example, one can apply various image effects on the generated file via imagemagick: https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/languages/ob-doc-LaTeX.html >> :imagemagick >> When not nil the source block is processed to pdf and the pdf is converted >> with ImageMagick to whatever is given as :file. Thus, the format is not >> limited to png. >> :iminoptions >> This is passed to ImageMagick before the pdf file. >> :imoutoptions >> This is passed to ImageMagick before the output file. That said, I do agree that re-using svg preview generation sounds like an improvement. But we need to be careful not to remove the existing functionality. > 2. remove the whole tikz generation completely > > 3. remove the whole html generation completely I did not see justification why we need to do it other than lack of ideas why they are useful. For now, I do not think that removing tikz/html generation is a good idea. According to https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/languages/ob-doc-LaTeX.html, tikz generation can be useful during LaTeX export. > 4. try to merge pdf generation with org.el and ox-latex.el or > incorporating it into he preview code and > org-preview-latex-process-alist (this is probably a whole project of it own) This sounds like a very good idea. I'd merge the preview code from org.el into ob-latex. > WDYT? Improving ob-latex is most welcome. I think that the first step is incremental refactor. Let's not remove features until we have less tangled code that is easier to understand. -- Ihor Radchenko, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/. Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode, or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92
