After all, because of dominant position of TeX in this area, it is very hard to start talking about technical typesetting at all without somehow getting TeX involved. In the long run, as these typesetting systems gain more success, it should perhaps be considered changing TeX.SE into an SE with a more broad focus on technical typesetting. This is entirely equivalent to how questions about TeXmacs are likely to look, or questions about any other (semi-)code-based self-contained typesetting system. However, other questions are welcome, too.Īs Joseph Wright (who appears not to agree with me in this case, however) remarks, questions about TeX have a certain spirit to them, different from those at StackOverflow: They are usually focused on good typesetting and document setup combined with a bit of simple programming. This is especially so if the questions are about typesetting and document setup, since the answers to such questions can be just as useful for users of TeX. Therefore, I think questions about it are acceptable on this site. ![]() It belongs to one of the outer circles of the TeX community along with software like Asymptote, Biber, LyX, MetaPost, the TikZ output module in Geogebra etc. It uses the TeX fonts, it uses BibTeX for bibliography management, it appears (to me, an outsider) to use a typesetting model based on TeX, and it can be used to generate TeX output. It seems to be intended to be a sort of spiritual successor to TeX, and my impression is that a lot of what happens under the hood is a reworking of TeX. In my personal, controversial opinion, TeXmacs is a child of the TeX community, not only because of its name. As for the more nebulous topics of what you should be doing with the software typography-wise, I'm sure such questions would be welcome on GraphicDesign.Īs always, read each site's help section to determine if your question is or is not on-topic before asking it there. Since it uses a Lisp for customization, I wouldn't be surprised to find some questions about customization on StackOverflow. So, where do these questions belong? TeXmacs is just another application after all, so questions about using it are on-topic for SuperUser. As such, texmacs should join mathjax as a tag-flag for off-topic questions. I come to the conclusion that texmacs is ultimately the same as mathjax: both of these technologies draw from the long history of TeX (whether to use familiar syntax or a familiar name), but neither actually involve TeX in any step of the process. While I don't personally like LyX questions here, at least they have the virtue of relying on TeX to get the job done. Repeating what's been said in the comments, TeXmacs ultimately uses a completely distinct typesetting engine that isn't TeX to produce its output. I said about my way.I'd put forth that TeXmacs should not be considered on-topic unless perhaps it's about its TeX export options (and even then, the idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth). I understand that each scientist has his usual manner to work. And what is important - all references saved in my collection and I may use them in the next papers. In order to do this, you have to specify the configuration option. Inside sessions for your application, you might wish to customize this behaviour, so as to complete built-in commands. ![]() By default, TeXmacs looks into your document for possible tab-completions. Just one click and you have a separate bib file with all references used in the paper. Tab-completion (FSF GNU project) Tab-completion. I created buttom in texstudio which makes: bibexport -o %.bib %.aux (in config of texstudio). After finishing the paper I use bibexport. The new reference is added in my collection and at the same time I may use it in the latex file. If I need a new reference I use for example JabRef, which can create a bib reference using doi or isbsn.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |