Re: [Texmacs-dev] Experiences using TeXmacs

[Joris van der Hoeven]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 03:21:20PM +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> On 16/09/11 14:17, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:02:44PM +0200, Jan Lellmann wrote:
> >>2) Annoying things
> >>------------------
> >>
> >>2a) Stylesheet Language: I had to implement some extensions using
> >>the stylesheet language. If one goes one step beyond the standard
> >>functionality, TeXmacs crashes at the blink of an eye. I found
> >>myself spending about 20% of the time figuring out a solution for a
> >>problem, and then spending 80% of the time trying 4 other solutions
> >>until I find one that doesn't crash TeXmacs. While LaTeX can also be
> >>incredibly tiresome to work with, it is solid as a rock. I think if
> >>TeXmacs aims at production quality and use in professional
> >>environment, these issues -- which mostly concern power-users --
> >>desperately need to get fixed. Also, there needs to be a clear
> >>documentation of the evaluation order of the document tree. I spent
> >>several hours trying to figure out the exact semantics of the
> >>various "quote" tags, and eventually gave up.
> >We probably should make the stylesheet language *less* powerful,
> >so that users are not invited to use "quote" like tags (which are
> >indeed somewhat more advanced to manipulate).
> >
> >We also should make it easier to define really advanced macros
> >externally using Scheme, rather than mistreating the style language.
> 
> Ah! I had dreams of it becoming more powerful! I guess I should
> migrate to scheme and fallback to the sytlesheet language only for
> simple style based things.

Well, simplifying the macro language has advantages, namely,
it makes it easier to automatically analyze macro definitions.
I start to make extensive use of this in order to attach DRD properties
to tags about which arguments are shown/hidden, accessible, foldable,
type of argument (string, content, color name, url, etc.), etc. etc.
In other words: making the macro language simpler actually could
make it *more* powerful, even though the expressive power descreases.

Another advantage of a simpler macro language is that we would
mainly use it for more or less template like macros,
which could be entered visually in a special dialog popup and
entered in the preamble, without having to enter source mode.
In other words: the macro language would be easy to use,
even for absolute beginners.

On the other hand, for really complex macros, it is better to
be able to use a more general purpose and robust programming language.
Of course, all DRD like properties will need to be entered by hand.
Notice that, contrary to five years ago, the typesetter has become
sufficiently powerful such that macros with accessible arguments
can safely be written in Scheme.

Best, --Joris