Re: [AUCTeX-devel] latex-pretty-symbols.el and subscripts (x-symbol): don't display _ or ^

[Mosè Giordano]

2015-08-23 22:50 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer <address@hidden>:
>>>>>> "Mosè" == Mosè Giordano <address@hidden> writes:
>
>    > Hi Uwe,
>    > 2015-08-23 17:26 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer <address@hidden>:
>
>    > I hope it's clear `latex-pretty-symbols' has nothing to do with AUCTeX
>    > ;-)
>
> Point taken, I sometimes (ab)use the auctex mailing list as a general
> list for editing latex files in (X)emacs, which would include reftex,
> cdlatex x-symbol etc.

Well, RefTeX is on-topic here since we develop also that package ;-)

> I also thought that the issue of sub and superscripts is a general
> feature of GNU emacs, however in the context of latex files it is the
> most relevant, but now I understand that the super subscript issue is of
> more special character as the following paragraph suggests.
> Or in other words it is not possible in general to make the _ and the ^
> disappear, which is sad and ugly.

Speaking for myself, I don't like code disappearing.  Instead I like
AUCTeX' approach: {sub,super}scripts are rendered as such but "^" and
"_" (and braces) are still there.

>    > Anyway, the question is fairly easy to answer: looking to the
>    > code it doesn't seem you can choose what to prettify and what not.
>    > You can either redefine `latex-unicode-simplified' without all
>    > {sub,super}script entries or add a new function to the hook reverting
>    > that change.  In the latter case, make sure the new function is
>    > evaluated after `latex-unicode-simplified'.  In package source code
>    > there is the email address of the author: you could suggest him to
>    > make some symbols optional.
>
> Right, what I miss most know is the inverse function of 
> latex-unicode-simplified.

I thought that adding another
`substitute-patterns-with-unicode-symbol' would have overridden the
one in `latex-unicode-simplified', but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Then, redefining `latex-unicode-simplified' seems to be the way to go.

>    > Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with AUCTeX' fold mode?  At least,
>    > when point is on a macro it's expanded to the real code and you can
>    > edit it, with latex-pretty-symbol I find this less convenient.
>
> I tend to disagree, see my comments below, however I agree: a inverse
> function to  latex-unicode-simplified would be convenient.
>
> As for AUCTeX fold mode: first of all in Xemacs it does have the
> features that are present  in GNU emacs: replacing (using overlays?) math 
> constructs such
> as \int really by its (unicode?) Symbols.
>
> However I consider the fold mode as being  inconvenient. When
> I modify a formula I have to toggle all the time
> TeX-fold-buffer
> and
> TeX-fold-clearout-buffer.

Why?  I'm not a hardcore TeX-fold-mode user, actually I seldom use it,
I don't know why you say you have to do that.

Bye,
Mosè