1 Álvaro Tejero Cantero <alvaro@antalia.com>
3 - I suggest creating a different "kewybinding namespace" for the formulas,
4 since you could put to good use all those keybindings from the menu (M-?,
5 C-?) thath currently do their job PLUS getting you out of the formula.
6 Seriously, it'd be great to have more keys free, so M-d t would be time
7 derivative and M-d ? derivative with respect to the variable ?. And so on.
9 Flattening macros. Sometimes it's annoying the fact that once you have
10 written a macro, you can't touch at it's "constant parts". I call flattening
11 to the process of substituting all macros with LaTeX code.
13 Task: designing a macro substitution system that reads from a file
14 (possibly the same file as the document's) the macros and parses the document
15 doing the appropriate replacements
17 This is very useful, because sometimes you have a big expression in a macro
18 and you want to change an index only. What do you do then?. You retype
19 everything (perhaps several times in the document) or you create extremely
20 generic and parametrizable macros that aren't very fast to fill in the
27 The number of characters which need to be typed
28 is the confusing nature of the command. 'M-c m', typed once, puts you into
29 math-mode. However, typing 'M-c m' again doesn't put you out of math-mode
30 --- it puts you into math-text mode. Then hitting it again puts you back
31 into normal math-mode. IMO, 'modal' keys should either be idempotent (so
32 hitting it the second time does nothing) or self-inverting. In fact, the
33 inverse to 'M-c m' is either 'ESC' or simply a space typed at the end of
34 the block --- which is confusing, since they're not of the same 'shape' as
35 the command that got you in there.
37 Now, I'm not saying that 'space' shouldn't be allowed as a short-cut to get
38 you out of math-mode; it's a most useful and natural one, I like it a lot.
39 However, on balance I think M-c m should also have that effect.