Hello all.
Any ideas how I can change the highlighting color when a command is prompted?
For example: when I enter \newgeometry. the highlighting is a dark brown and
hard to see through. I dont see any options in editor highlighting to change
this particular area.
Thanks
Charles
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
the color signifies that that texstudio does not recognize your command and
assumes that it is a syntax error.
How to make commands known is described in the manual (it uses the same lists
as for command completion)
The color can be changed as any other syntax color in the option
(Editor/formats/latexSynatxerror)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
IMHO, this feature should be disabled by default, possibly activated in
configuration dialog box: it is distracting the user and is, most of the time,
just false alarm.
Especially beginners are disturbed by this highlighting: either they don't
know what it means and ask about it, or they know what it means and try to
correct syntax errors that are not syntax errors.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
i would find it interesting to get any feedback which packages the beginners
use that are not known to texstudio.
In my work i don't get any false alarms and it is quite helpful to see quickly
that a command is misspelled (though most often it is the underscore.)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Well, I don't remember which commands are highlighted but, when I'm going form
computer to computer during LaTeX courses (last one yesterday and next one
this afternoon :), I often see those orange highlights...
At the beginning, my students use Article(French) (by the way, shouldn't it be
a space between "Article" and "(French)"?):
When they are less beginners, they gradually make use of packages: eurosym,
xcolor, hyperref, varioref, graphicx, hypcap, xspace, amsmath (or, rather,
mathtools), amssymb, esvect, mathrsfs, amsthm (or ntheorem), thmtools, pifont,
multirow, booktabs, array, siunitx, listings, pgfplots, pstricks (pst-all),
pstricks-add, pdfscreen, beamer.
Later, when they are intermediate users (but still subject to be distracted by
false alarms ;) they can use: sectsty, titlesec, multido, enumitem, biblatex,
csquotes, makeidx, glossaries.
Also very important, I encourage my students to heavily make use of personal
new commands: these are systematically highlighted!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Well, I must admit that it works for new commands (students, who are not
working on their own personal laptop, work on the computers of the university,
configured in last June so with an old version of TeXstudio, probably with
TeXmakerX).
The list of commands is from babel (french module) and they are also
recognized on my computer but I don't remember if I did something special for
this.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
So do I, probably because of the false alarms: at the beginning, the user has
a deep look at the marked errors and, as time moves and pointed errors are
just false alarms, he doesn't pay attention to them.
As:
1.during writing time, one should focus on his text and the structure of the
text, and not be disturbed by LaTeX syntax errors,
errors will in any case be pointed out after the compilation,
my opinion is that this feature shouldn't be activated by default.
BTW, I noticed false alarms today with up to date TeXstudio: \inst beamer's
command.
Cheers.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
hmmm, i don't really get the philosophy behind your statements.
Every modern programming IDE has a internal simple syntax check to give a
quick feedback if the entered code is incorrect.
The same should apply with latex code as compilation is
a) time consuming (not as much as it used to be but still)
b) the error messages of tex are not too precise (you have to search the line
for the false code and in some cases, here in some tabulars, the error
position is completely off)
Your main point of criticism is the false positive alarms. What i don't get is
that you prefer to deactivate the whole mechanism instead of providing an
extended list of commands. It takes seconds to add a missing command to the
cwl files. And if complete packages are missing, they can be generated with
not too much effort if the style-files are used as a base. The best of it all
is that you will get an extended command completion, too. As generating these
lists is not complicated, i don't really understand why nobody has tried to
extend them.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
IMHO, typesetting documents with LaTeX cannot be fully compared to computer
programming: (LaTeX) formatting (and syntax errors) should be a secondary
concern when writing informative text and postponed to the compilation
process.
For instance, as you're writing an important part of your work, a (good) idea
is coming to your mind, for instance a detail that you forgot to add at a
first glance but that could be very useful to make understandable your
purpose. So you want to add this detail when you'll finish the sentence you're
typing. But suddenly, a (maybe not so) wrong LaTeX command you entered is
highlighted so your attention is focused on it, maybe you try to spell it
correctly and... finally you forgot the nice idea you had few minutes ago: too
bad! ;)
About compilation:
a) it can be a long process but it is not a good idea to compile too
frequently,
b) the error location is sometimes hard to find but this becomes rare. About
tabulars, syntax misspellings are nothing compared to syntax structure errors:
missing or extra & (especially with multicolumn), braces not matching, etc.
About positive alarms (thanks for the right expression :)
a) adding a missing command to the cwl files is not a job for beginners, the
most fragile users,
b) okay, providing an extended list of commands of a (partially or fully "cwl-
ed") package could be done by experienced users but:
there exists 4,171 packages or classes!
above all, activating all the (or, even, only the most frequently used) .cwl files shouldn't be a good idea: too long completion lists is completely useless and (I guess) TeXstudio's performances should decrease significantly.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
there are 4k packages but only a handful of them is usually used. And i am not
talking about the beginners, i have not received any new packages from
experienced users either, only complaints that there missing commands.
txs undertands the usepackage command and only activates for completion and
syntax checking the packages which are used in the document, so there is no
need for manual ineraction (in case that you have not noticed yet. You can
deactivate more or less all cwl-files in the options as the scanner activates
the necessary ones automatically)
So performance wise there is not limitation on the number of available
packages.
Furthermore missing or extra & in tabulars are checked by the syntax checker.
The care free solution would be a scanner/parser for latex packages,
unfortunately tex programmers are rather creative in declaring commands ...
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I would say that only a handful of them is usually used packages by a /given/
user. The union of the usually used packages by a all the users should be a
bit bigger. Nevertheless, I almost agree with you: the most frequently used
packages is not so big; but TeXstudio should pay attention to isolated users.
About tabulars, I didn't blame TeXstudio, it was a general remark.
About completion and syntax checking on the fly, I didn't notice, thanks.
So, yes, the best should be to "cwl" as many packages as possible. Meanwhile,
I'm not convinced by this feature but the nice behavior of TeXstudio about
command recognition make my opinion less definitive :)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hello all.
Any ideas how I can change the highlighting color when a command is prompted?
For example: when I enter \newgeometry. the highlighting is a dark brown and
hard to see through. I dont see any options in editor highlighting to change
this particular area.
Thanks
Charles
the color signifies that that texstudio does not recognize your command and
assumes that it is a syntax error.
How to make commands known is described in the manual (it uses the same lists
as for command completion)
The color can be changed as any other syntax color in the option
(Editor/formats/latexSynatxerror)
IMHO, this feature should be disabled by default, possibly activated in
configuration dialog box: it is distracting the user and is, most of the time,
just false alarm.
Especially beginners are disturbed by this highlighting: either they don't
know what it means and ask about it, or they know what it means and try to
correct syntax errors that are not syntax errors.
i would find it interesting to get any feedback which packages the beginners
use that are not known to texstudio.
In my work i don't get any false alarms and it is quite helpful to see quickly
that a command is misspelled (though most often it is the underscore.)
Well, I don't remember which commands are highlighted but, when I'm going form
computer to computer during LaTeX courses (last one yesterday and next one
this afternoon :), I often see those orange highlights...
At the beginning, my students use Article(French) (by the way, shouldn't it be
a space between "Article" and "(French)"?):
so, commands from essentially geometry and babel (french) packages are used.
"French" frequently used commands are:
\today \og \fg{} \bsc \up \No\Nos \no \nos \ier \iers \iere \ieres \ieme \iemes \primo \secundo \tertio \quarto \FrenchEnumerateWhen they are less beginners, they gradually make use of packages: eurosym,
xcolor, hyperref, varioref, graphicx, hypcap, xspace, amsmath (or, rather,
mathtools), amssymb, esvect, mathrsfs, amsthm (or ntheorem), thmtools, pifont,
multirow, booktabs, array, siunitx, listings, pgfplots, pstricks (pst-all),
pstricks-add, pdfscreen, beamer.
Later, when they are intermediate users (but still subject to be distracted by
false alarms ;) they can use: sectsty, titlesec, multido, enumitem, biblatex,
csquotes, makeidx, glossaries.
Also very important, I encourage my students to heavily make use of personal
new commands: these are systematically highlighted!
how do you define new commands ? they should be (and are here) recognized just
fine.
Your list of commands, to which package do they belong ?
Well, I must admit that it works for new commands (students, who are not
working on their own personal laptop, work on the computers of the university,
configured in last June so with an old version of TeXstudio, probably with
TeXmakerX).
The list of commands is from babel (french module) and they are also
recognized on my computer but I don't remember if I did something special for
this.
You could just change the error format to "wiggled line with normal
background" and ignore it.
Personally, I never look at the marked errors
So do I, probably because of the false alarms: at the beginning, the user has
a deep look at the marked errors and, as time moves and pointed errors are
just false alarms, he doesn't pay attention to them.
As:
1.during writing time, one should focus on his text and the structure of the
text, and not be disturbed by LaTeX syntax errors,
my opinion is that this feature shouldn't be activated by default.
BTW, I noticed false alarms today with up to date TeXstudio: \inst beamer's
command.
Cheers.
hmmm, i don't really get the philosophy behind your statements.
Every modern programming IDE has a internal simple syntax check to give a
quick feedback if the entered code is incorrect.
The same should apply with latex code as compilation is
a) time consuming (not as much as it used to be but still)
b) the error messages of tex are not too precise (you have to search the line
for the false code and in some cases, here in some tabulars, the error
position is completely off)
Your main point of criticism is the false positive alarms. What i don't get is
that you prefer to deactivate the whole mechanism instead of providing an
extended list of commands. It takes seconds to add a missing command to the
cwl files. And if complete packages are missing, they can be generated with
not too much effort if the style-files are used as a base. The best of it all
is that you will get an extended command completion, too. As generating these
lists is not complicated, i don't really understand why nobody has tried to
extend them.
IMHO, typesetting documents with LaTeX cannot be fully compared to computer
programming: (LaTeX) formatting (and syntax errors) should be a secondary
concern when writing informative text and postponed to the compilation
process.
For instance, as you're writing an important part of your work, a (good) idea
is coming to your mind, for instance a detail that you forgot to add at a
first glance but that could be very useful to make understandable your
purpose. So you want to add this detail when you'll finish the sentence you're
typing. But suddenly, a (maybe not so) wrong LaTeX command you entered is
highlighted so your attention is focused on it, maybe you try to spell it
correctly and... finally you forgot the nice idea you had few minutes ago: too
bad! ;)
About compilation:
a) it can be a long process but it is not a good idea to compile too
frequently,
b) the error location is sometimes hard to find but this becomes rare. About
tabulars, syntax misspellings are nothing compared to syntax structure errors:
missing or extra & (especially with multicolumn), braces not matching, etc.
About positive alarms (thanks for the right expression :)
a) adding a missing command to the cwl files is not a job for beginners, the
most fragile users,
b) okay, providing an extended list of commands of a (partially or fully "cwl-
ed") package could be done by experienced users but:
there exists 4,171 packages or classes!
above all, activating all the (or, even, only the most frequently used) .cwl files shouldn't be a good idea: too long completion lists is completely useless and (I guess) TeXstudio's performances should decrease significantly.
there are 4k packages but only a handful of them is usually used. And i am not
talking about the beginners, i have not received any new packages from
experienced users either, only complaints that there missing commands.
txs undertands the usepackage command and only activates for completion and
syntax checking the packages which are used in the document, so there is no
need for manual ineraction (in case that you have not noticed yet. You can
deactivate more or less all cwl-files in the options as the scanner activates
the necessary ones automatically)
So performance wise there is not limitation on the number of available
packages.
Furthermore missing or extra & in tabulars are checked by the syntax checker.
The care free solution would be a scanner/parser for latex packages,
unfortunately tex programmers are rather creative in declaring commands ...
I would say that only a handful of them is usually used packages by a /given/
user. The union of the usually used packages by a all the users should be a
bit bigger. Nevertheless, I almost agree with you: the most frequently used
packages is not so big; but TeXstudio should pay attention to isolated users.
About tabulars, I didn't blame TeXstudio, it was a general remark.
About completion and syntax checking on the fly, I didn't notice, thanks.
So, yes, the best should be to "cwl" as many packages as possible. Meanwhile,
I'm not convinced by this feature but the nice behavior of TeXstudio about
command recognition make my opinion less definitive :)
Umm...So, back to my original question...Thanks, I got it lighter so I can see
through it.