Re: [Vim-latex-devel] Re: Review of vim-latex status

[Srinath A. <sr...@fa...>]

Hello!

Happy New Year!

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Carl Mueller wrote:

> Actually, I prefer the solution that you give above, with
> the hotkey maps.  If users don't like this, they could just
> map the keys as they wish.  Probably, you are right, and
> people just use latex or amslatex exclusively.  Of course,
> some people have multiple collaborators, so they have to use
> both.
>
> Emacs auctex scans the file to determine which kind of latex
> is being used, and customizes itself accordingly.  It seems
> to me that \usepackage{...amsmath...} is an umambiguous way
> to check whether amslatex is being used (except when the
> file is first created).  At least this would allow the use
> of the package on all kinds of files.  Otherwise, there
> might be a need for a different configuration files for each
> paper.  Could it be an option?
>
As Mikolaj has said, g:Tex_package_supported gets
initialized by latex-suite by scanning the main latex file
for \usepackage{} lines.  This is a comma seperated list of
all packages which the user has used... We could always use
this in conjunction with what I was mentioning previously
with having

g:Tex_HotKeys_amslatex =3D '...'
g:Tex_HotKeys_latex =3D '...'

But I think we both agree that this is not really necessary.
Letting the user choose one variable is I think sufficient.
If someone really wants it and comes up with a compelling
argument, I think we can go ahead and make the necessary
changes...

> This sounds reasonable, but no one does it.  In fact, the
> multiline versions weren't designed to be used this way,
> and journal typesetters would probably complain.  You are
> trying to do something equivalent to fixing the illogical
> spelling of English -- it sounds good, but people don't want
> to be forced to switch to someone else's system.
>
Okay! Makes sense. Make they do some optimization based on
the fact that there is only one equation or something...

> I personally don't like this feature of ultratex, and I
> prefer auctex to ultratex.  I just wanted to point out what
> other people have done.  But it does have the advantage that
> you only have to remember one thing -- typing dollar signs.
>
Well, the way latex-sutie is shaping up, at least for
environments (not just mathematical environments, but
anything at all), the user needs to remember just <F5> and
<S-F5>. For me at least, this is more than sufficient. Along
with the clever little auctex mappings like `/ -> \frac{}{},
etc, I can type almost everything I need...

The only remaining annoyance seems to be that for almost all
eurpean users, the meta mappings come as a nasty surprise.
For them <M-c> is a very commonly used key... I am presently
thinking of ways to get around this...

A drastic step will be to remove the <M-c> mapping by
defauly and instead provide a map <Plug>Tex_MathCal which
provides the same functionality. The user if he wants can
then do:
=09nmap <M-c> <Plug>Tex_MathCal
Unfortunately, since most users will be too lazy to do any
customization, the really cool <M-l> mapping will be left
unused by most of the english speaking latex users.

I know Luc would be happy if we took out the meta mappings.
What do the others think? Is there a more elegant way of
handing this? Maybe check encoding or something? Do people
who like to use literal =EC, =E1 and such use some encoding
different from latin1 and utf8? We could make a somewhat
more informed guess that way...

Srinath