Re: [Maxima-discuss] recognized functions should be typeset in a conventional way, was: Tex for special functions?

[Eduardo O. <edu...@gm...>]

Hi all,

my experience is that the TeX output is easy to tweak once we have
some examples to start with, and it's hard when we don't...

So: I'll try to put my own tweaks in some public place, and it would
be nice if more people would feel encouraged to do that too.

Question: I know two basic formats for sharing snippets - one has just
the input lines, like this,

  tex1(me);
  texput(me,"\\mu_e");
  tex1(me);

and the other includes the "(%i<n>)"s, the "(%o<n>)"s, and the
outputs, like this,

  (%i1) tex1(me);
  (%o1)                              {\it me}
  (%i2) texput(me,"\\mu_e");
  (%o2)                                \mu_e
  (%i3) tex1(me);
  (%o3)                                \mu_e
  (%i4)

and both formats can be put in comments in .mac and .lisp files. For
me the first format is much easier to use, because I use Maxima in a
very primitive way - this one: <http://anggtwu.net/eepitch.html>. I do
have a trick to make it strip the "(%i<n>)"s before sending those
lines to the terminal running Maxima, but it's a hack that is both
ugly and fragile.

How do "normal" people handle snippets in the two formats above? Also,
it is commons to use "cells" like the ones described in documentation
of Emaxima? And what about WxMaxima and IMaxima? I've never used
them...

  Cheers,
    Eduardo Ochs
    http://anggtwu.net/eev-maxima.html