From: Denis B. <dbi...@wa...> - 2012-05-14 22:34:08
|
Le lundi 14/05/12 à 23h55, "Tim Hoffmann" <hof...@hi...> a écrit : > Taken to the other extreme, you'd only see the $ $ and not the > content ;) It would be true with a strong colour for the delimiters and a pale one for the formulas: I don't ask so much (equal colours is okay) ;) > > I know, I know, I'm exaggerating :) but for me, it is much more > > clear that something is math because I see the delimiters than > > because it's green. > Colour > > is just here to help me, not to make me /sure/ what is math. > In the extreme, reading "$x$ and $y$" is harder that " x and y ". > And I'm more interested in the information "[x] and [y]" than in > "[some formula] and [some formula]". In French, the word "has" is "a" and then we sometimes say (not very nice French but used) "On a a complexe" ("One has a complex"). If the .tex code is: On a $a$ complexe it is very clear. On the other hand: On a a complexe with the two "a" to be distinguished just by their colour will be hard to read. BTW, we also have the word "y" :) In fact, I'm sure that a LaTeX user, even a beginner, is not distracted by the dollars because he quickly started to ignore them /but/ he knows and is sure that what is between is math. IMO, the user wastes less time to read the delimiters than to convince himself that what he's reading is really math. > But I think we both made our points clear and just have different > preferences (like in the case of line spacing). So concerning a > proper default, also others should comment. Yes! :) > Btw. when we are the default formats, I have some other changes, that > IMHO should be discussed: > - Important keyword: non-bold, environment bold (e.g. for \begin > \end, it's rather the type of environment that should be in the > focus, not that "something begin/ends here", same argument holds for > \section commands) I'm not sure: for sections, it is also important that the words you are reading is structuring your document at a given level. For environments, I would agree except when you have contiguous ones, for instance with beamer: \begin{frame} ... \end{frame} \begin{frame} ... \end{frame} \begin{frame} ... \end{frame} \begin{frame} ... \end{frame} where it is also important to know if you are inside or outside the environment. > - some less intrusive colours (r,g,b) for some backgrounds: > commentTodo(168,207,131) > BraceMatch text(192,0,0) background(255,255,127) > BraceMismatch - reverse text and background from BraceMatch > latexSyntaxMistake(255,191,159) > line:error(255,191,191) > line:warning(255,255,191) > line:badbox(191,214,255) No time to test now. > Yes, but that was designed by ourselves (Benito or Jan). The complete > format table is inherited from QCodeEdit, we only did minor > adjustments there. It is a decision between "take what's there at > almost no cost", or invest into completely rewriting that widget. And > probably it wasn't even envisioned that you may use so many formats. > In short, yes, it may be better, but I have a long list of things to > change, which I consider more important. I can understand. > And concerning the size, maybe it could deserve a separate tab by > now. Could be nice. > As a remark, I really don't understand why some desktop environments > waste so much space. If you are restricted to 768 in height (which > many laptops today are, so it's the worst case assumption), you only > see 11 lines in the table, on Windows it is 17. I agree, that 11 is > not enough to properly navigate. You should remind me, when some > things do not fit on the screen, because usually I work on windows > with a larger screen. If I'm right, I used to send remarks about this to the list, also because, in French, words and sentences are often longer than in English so some locations for some lists or options are only suboptimal (overlaps, etc.) I'll try to retrieve my message. > > > Furthermore, if we plan to support more file types, there should > > > be a selector, that only the formats for a certain type are > > > displayed at once. > > > > Do you mean other formats than TeX related ones? > Maybe. I think Benito thought about this. Sigh... there is so much to do to make TXS even better just for (La)TeX edition... > But there are also some tex related files that could be handled (ins, > cfg, sty). However I currently don't know if they'd need extra > highlighting. For .cfg files, for instance biblatex.cfg which is of current use with biblatex, the trouble is that it doesn't recognize biblatex' package's commands... Maybe a magic comment should be necessary. -- Denis |