On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 02:02:04PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:30:28PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> > [snip rest]
>
> It's not my fight so I'll just shut up now, except for ...
>
> > 3) No. My solution (auto-validate with manual negative override) needs
> > one b
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:30:28PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> [snip rest]
It's not my fight so I'll just shut up now, except for ...
> 3) No. My solution (auto-validate with manual negative override) needs
> one button, just like yours (auto-include with manual negative override
> IIUC). Th
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:06:27AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> But of course the validate must run anyway... we do not want to
> include ams if no math is used.
Sure. But it will no longer break documents when it goes wrong. If Andre
says it's hard to get right, I believe him.
> So it i
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:10:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I'd say that this argument is bull, _you_ know what code mathed
> outputs and if it is AMS or not.
Is \begin{equation} AMS or not?
[It can be both depending on whether AMS is included or not. Making a
choice of including AMS
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> Development-wise, it adds about two hundred lines of code which
Andre> "sometimes guesses right". I did not really want to use _this_
Andre> argument again, but as you started with development issues:
Andre> Here we go.
Where are
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:55:08PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>> And if it reduces code complexity, why on earth not ? How strange that
>> it is Andre arguing against "theoretical correctness" this time !
>
| I am not. I am arguing that it is impossible t
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:47:12PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
>> > It seems that for autodetected packages, one realy needs a 3-state widget,
>> > something like
>> >
>> >Use AMS math?
>> >( ) autodetect ( ) never ( ) always
>> >
>> > using r
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:41:25PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with Martin on the points he defends below. And amsmath
> is bound to be incompatible with some latex packages. This is latex,
> after all. OTOH, not wanting ams* is not a matter of availability, since
> the am
FWIW, I agree with Martin on the points he defends below. And amsmath
is bound to be incompatible with some latex packages. This is latex,
after all. OTOH, not wanting ams* is not a matter of availability, since
the ams classes are in reauired/ on CTAN, and I think we can consider
that they are p
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:07:43PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> I'm waiting to see an argument in favour of validate. So far I've seen :
>
> 1) it is theoretically better for some reason
> 2) we want to test validate code
> 3) other things really do need validate
>
> 1) I don't understand. 2) is
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:04:04PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:24:52AM -0300, Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote:
> >> Right, and this button already exists. [...]
> >
> | We have four cases:
> >
> | (1) validate
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 07:42:25PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Unless you mean 'always load by default'. That does (mostly) work, but I
> already explained my objections to that.
He does mean that, and so do I. Can you try explaining again, I do not
understand your objections.
regards
john
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:16:34PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:13:32PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > Loading AMS math can be useful even if no AMS macro is used, as it fixes bugs
> > in some latex macros.
>
> So a clear and simple solution is to have a toggle which
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:59:21PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:55:08PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > And if it reduces code complexity, why on earth not ? How strange that
> > it is Andre arguing against "theoretical correctness" this time !
>
> I am not. I am arguin
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:07:43PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> [...]
Exactly my pov.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 05:00:14PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:58:25PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > No ! Default to use AMS Math. Have no autodetect. That covers *all*
> > bases with maximum usability and minimum complexity.
>
> This is fine with me. Now convince the
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:58:25PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> No ! Default to use AMS Math. Have no autodetect. That covers *all*
> bases with maximum usability and minimum complexity.
This is fine with me. Now convince the others.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:55:08PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> And if it reduces code complexity, why on earth not ? How strange that
> it is Andre arguing against "theoretical correctness" this time !
I am not. I am arguing that it is impossible to guess right in all cases,
so I'd rather avoid th
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:47:12PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > It seems that for autodetected packages, one realy needs a 3-state widget,
> > something like
> >
> >Use AMS math?
> >( ) autodetect ( ) never ( ) always
> >
> > using radio buttons, like Martin sugested. It seems that
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:45:51AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:19:16AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > And why won't the validate be able to take care of this?
> >
> > "If any math construct is used that implies AMS
> > turn AMS on
> > unless AMS is turned
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:27:16AM -0300, Joao Luis M. Assirati wrote:
> It seems that for autodetected packages, one realy needs a 3-state widget,
> something like
>
>Use AMS math?
>( ) autodetect ( ) never ( ) always
>
> using radio buttons, like Martin sugested. It seems that this is
> We have four cases:
> (1) validate finds AMS, user wants it
> (2) validate finds AMS, but user does not want it
>
> (3) validate does not find AMS, but user wants it
> (4) validate does not find AMS, user does not want it
>
> > The idea is
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:04:04PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | (4) validate does not find AMS, user does not want it
> | (4) is not covered by your proposal.
>
> But isn't (4) then a degenerate case?
Dekel was just saying that people want it as AMS redefines "Standard"
stuff.
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:24:52AM -0300, Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote:
>> Right, and this button already exists. [...]
>
| We have four cases:
>
| (1) validate finds AMS, user wants it
| (2) validate finds AMS, but
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:24:52AM -0300, Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote:
> Right, and this button already exists. [...]
We have four cases:
(1) validate finds AMS, user wants it
(2) validate finds AMS, but user does not want it
(3) validate does not find
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:13:32PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
>> Loading AMS math can be useful even if no AMS macro is used, as it fixes bugs
>> in some latex macros.
>
| So a clear and simple solution is to have a toggle which exactly
| indicates whethe
Hello,
Hi, a sugestion:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> We could do it like that. My contraints are "the user should be able to
> override the validation guesses" and "one button is enough".
Right, and this button already exists. When validation detects the need
for ams, it should check the current "U
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:13:32PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> Loading AMS math can be useful even if no AMS macro is used, as it fixes bugs
> in some latex macros.
So a clear and simple solution is to have a toggle which exactly
indicates whether AMS should be loaded or not. No more, no less.
I
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:19:16AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | Ok. So then the default should be "off" and the user has to switch on AMS
> | as soon as LaTeX complains. I just wanted to be a bit nicer towards newbies
> | who don't know what AMS is and when it is needed.
>
> And why won'
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:45:51AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:19:16AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > And why won't the validate be able to take care of this?
> >
> > "If any math construct is used that implies AMS
> > turn AMS on
> > unless AMS is turne
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:19:16AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> And why won't the validate be able to take care of this?
>
> "If any math construct is used that implies AMS
> turn AMS on
> unless AMS is turned explictly off"
>
> And if the user turns AMS off, he is on his own and mus
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:19:16AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >> Development-wise, the advantage is that validate gets field testing,
> >
> | Development-wise, it adds about two hundred lines of code which
> | "sometimes guesses right". I did not really want to use _this_ argument
> | ag
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:16:32AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>> > Of course it is. Which case is not covered?
>>
>> See below. The case of AMS not being really needed and the user not
>> realizing it.
>
| Ok. So then the default should be "off" and
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:16:32AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Of course it is. Which case is not covered?
>
> See below. The case of AMS not being really needed and the user not
> realizing it.
Ok. So then the default should be "off" and the user has to switch on AMS
as soon as LaTeX compl
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:42:49AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:53:54AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > So I'd rather have AMS detection completely removed from validate(), but
> > > - for convenience reasons as probably most users don't care - switched on
> > > by
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:53:54AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > So I'd rather have AMS detection completely removed from validate(), but
> > - for convenience reasons as probably most users don't care - switched on
> > by default. This way it is possible to disable AMS if it is really not
> >
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 07:36:33AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:11:35PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > I'd really like to make "Use AMS" on by default and drop all AMS auto
> > > "detection" as this fails too often.
> >
> > I don't think that's wise... AMS is about
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:11:35PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > I'd really like to make "Use AMS" on by default and drop all AMS auto
> > "detection" as this fails too often.
>
> I don't think that's wise... AMS is about the best 'canary in the mine'
> for validate to get some real-life testi
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 06:02:35PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I'd really like to make "Use AMS" on by default and drop all AMS auto
> "detection" as this fails too often.
I don't think that's wise... AMS is about the best 'canary in the mine'
for validate to get some real-life testing.
Mart
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Using the minibuffer with 'M-x math-insert cases 2' also does not
> > work.
>
> 'M-x math-insert \cases' should work now. No easy way to start with an
> initial size, though.
In 1.3 it is possible to increase 'cases' size with ctrl-enter, so this
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 12:35:04PM -0300, Joao Luis M. Assirati wrote:
> In 1.3.0:
> Insert -> Math -> Cases environment is broken in 1.3, either xforms or
> qt.
Indeed. I just fixed it.
> Using the minibuffer with 'M-x math-insert cases 2' also does not
> work.
'M-x math-insert \cases' should
41 matches
Mail list logo
