axiom-developer
[Top][All Lists]

## [Axiom-developer] \left( and \right) conversions from LaTeX

 From: Page, Bill Subject: [Axiom-developer] \left( and \right) conversions from LaTeX Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:42:33 -0500

TeXmacs developers;

The Axiom developers plan to distribute a new version of
tm_axiom plug-in together with open source Axiom as an
officially supported interface for TeXmacs. Currently we
have a beta test version of this interface for Windows that
uses an efficient threaded technique for the interprocess
communication. A linux version will follow. I am currently
extending this new plug-in to include the Axiom tex output
line-breaker algorithm. I have integrated the same code
that I used on MathAction and it seems to be working well.
It successfully wraps example expressions like

(x+y+z)^10

and

(1/x+y+z)^10

But by default the line-breaker code writes left and right
parenthesis, as LaTeX expandable \lefth( and \right) symbols.
Unfortunately TeXmacs (at least the native Windows version)
no longer seems to translate these correctly. (I was sure
that this used to work in previous versions of TeXmacs.)
What I see in TeXmacs is literally

<left-(-1> and <right-)-1>

instead of the acutal parenthesis. As I understand it, these
codes are intended to display as larger parenthesis of some
fixed size. However these are now displayed only as formating
codes exactly as as shown above but highlighted in red - not
as actual parenthesis.

So I see two problems.

1) The conversion form LaTeX \left( and \right) should
really just be to TeXmacs \left( and \right( . Note:
TeXmacs \left( and \right) seem to work fine when
entered at the keyboard. Is there some way I can
configure TeXmacs to do this conversion from LaTeX?

2) Why aren't the <left-(-1> and right codes displayed
as actual parenthesis? Just for interest sake, I
would like to know how to enter these things at the
keyboard.

Until this is resolved, it is easy for me to convert the
\left( and \right) symbols to just ( and ). But of course
this does look nearly as nice for complex highly folded
mathematics.

Is this a known problem? Or have I misunderstood something
about how LaTeX to TeXmacs is supposed to work?

Thanks.

Bill Page.