Re: [AUCTeX] preview-latex on Fedora Core 4

[Alejandro Jakubi]

A few examples of "features" that I do not like very much of Emacs:

1. Limited hotkey combinations. As most default mappings that I have seen 
have the form Ctrl-<key>, it seems that not very much else is available.
This would be the reason why eg AUCTeX binds some commands to four
Ctrl-<key>'s. And four Ctrl-<key>'s for operations that I would
do frequently is not pleasant.

2. Bad font display. I have tried some monotype fonts, but I have not yet 
found something good enough. Eg currently I am using this setting:

Emacs.Font: -b&h-luxi mono-medium-r-normal--14-0-0-0-m-0-adobe-standard

in my .Xresources. This is (apparently) the same font that I have (by 
default) in my consoles and editors, but characters display much worse and 
with smaller interline separation.

3. Configuration design. I find strange the logic behind the design of 
Options > Customize Emacs, too far away from what is usual in most other 
applications. Besides there are too many things to look at. This makes 
configuration rather difficult.
Eg I could not found any option to set the font yet. This is quite easy in 
any other editor that I know.


Nevertheless I will try the version for Windows from the AUCTeX site (when 
I get it from the server where I have downloaded it as it is too large for 
dialup). Time ago, I have found Emacs too unstable under Win9x (and 
disrupting the OS quite frequently, this means much more frequently than 
usual). I hope that under XP it goes better.

I have tried LyX 1.3.6 (under Fedora 4) with the instant preview option 
set. The result is not so bad. Eg it displays fine some simple newcommands 
and the labels of package showkeys. But the initial conversion from 
WYSIWYM to WYSIWYG occurs in a rather incontrolable fashion, some time 
after the equation becomes displayed in the window. I have not found yet 
any explantion on the operation of this mode in the LyX documentation.

But LyX is not a good option for me. One of the reasons being that it 
cannot handle properly more complex macros and packages that I use 
frequently. That is, an editor with preview mode is much better.

> It has been done.  However, the editor needs a graphics-capable

> You can, obviously, implement stuff in other editors as well.  And
> preview.sty has been employed in quite a few other settings, in
> particular in connection with dvipng.  But the maturity of

I know very little of programming to do that. Indeed, I would like to give 
a try to these other editors if you do not mind sending some pointers.


Regards, Alejandro Jakubi