Re: Math symbols

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com>
> Cc: schwab@linux-m68k.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2022 08:36:30 +0200
> 
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 at 09:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Maybe I don't understand in enough detail what you want to propose.
> > What other features, except input methods, may need the TeX names of
> > these characters and for what purposes?
> 
> There can be a variant of `insert-char' that reads the TeX name instead
> of the Unicode name.  Also a hierarchical menu like `emoji-insert'.
> Then tex-mode probably wants to suggest those symbols in its
> completion-at-point.  And so on.

I'd prefer not to add ways of input beyond what we already have,
unless the IM framework cannot support it.  Since the TeX input method
demonstrates (I think) that IM framework can support these symbols,
introducing yet another way of inputing those characters sounds like
unnecessary complication to me.

Emoji input may justify a special solution because there are no
acceptable short names for its large set of sequences (which grows
with each new version of Unicode), something that is not true for the
math symbols.  And if you'd like to offer an input facility similar to
Emoji, i.e. one that uses transient.el and the Unicode names of the
characters, I don't think I'd object (although the question of
necessity and whether it's justified given the existing IM would still
be pertinent).  But that's not what your package does, AFAICT: it's a
proper input method, just a different one.

As for completion-at-point: couldn't that use the input-method as
well?  Isn't it reasonable to assume that people who use tex-mode also
uset the TeX input method?

> > We could, I think, add an alternative input method to latin-ltx.el,
> > which will be identical to the existing one, except for changes in the
> > above-mentioned areas.
> 
> This is done: it's the package I linked in my original message.

I meant to have such an alternative input method as part of
latin-ltx.el.

If you don't want to add this to Emacs, that's fine as well.  I guess
I misinterpreted your original proposal, then

> An alternative is to make the TeX IM customizable.

I propose to have a separate input method in latin-ltx.el.  Call it
TeX-alternative or something.  I think this is better than somehow
customizing a single IM.

> But this, again, raises the question: should there be an alist of
> 2500 symbols defined in latin-ltx.el, or should this info be stored
> in some shared place so various features can benefit from it?  (I'm
> not sure, and I'm not advocating for either.)

I don't think it matters where the names are stored.  Strings used by
input methods are not usually shared, but if you want to suggest to
have a list of names somewhere, and then code which generates the
relevant input methods from that list of names (and other features
that use the same list), I don't think I'd object, provided that we
find a good solution for avoiding to load that until it's actually
used.