Re: [Vim-latex-devel] Re: Alt mappings

[Benji F. <be...@me...>]

Mikolaj Machowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 12:02:31PM +0100, Luc Hermitte wrote:
> 
>>the {key}/{sequence_of_keys}. For instance, I like ']em' to insert
>>'\emph{}', but what do you prefer ? 'FEM', ']FEM', ']EM' ?
> 
> 
> I like FEM because:
> ]FEM it too long
> ]EM can lead to inconsistence. Are we getting rid of F only for \emph{}
> or for all font commands? Look for FIT. It is \itshape{}. You can change
> it for ]IT but what about EIT (\begin{itemize})?
> Existing system of shortcuts is slightly awkward bu at least (I hope)
> internally consistent.
> Really nice would be something quite different. Possibility for user to
> create his own mappings by doing :map ]em FEM (in another words: create
> latexSuite API). But I do not know how to do this.

      This is what <Plug> is for.  We already use this in imaps.vim . 
Just search for "<Plug>" to see the examples.

>>Don't worry. 
>>BTW, it would be nice if we could define mappings aware of the TeX mode.
>>For instace, an same mapping would insert '\textbf{}' or '\mathbf{}'
>>according to the current TeX mode.
> 
> 
> This is possible with checking of current syntax. Benji did it for
> inserting cdots, and I used it in 'polski' file.
> 
> if synIDattr(synID(line('.'),col('.')-1,0),"name") =~ '^texMath\|^texZone'

      I am familiar with this idea, but I cannot take credit for the ... 
map.  When I met Bram last summer, I suggested that the next Big Thing 
for vim should be a better way to deal with regions (math in TeX 
documents, comments in many languages, script languages in HTML-like 
languages, etc.)  We'll see what happens.

					--Benji