RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Benji Fisher
Vim Users and Developers:

     Up to vim 6.x, all TeX variants were given filetype tex .  The
syntax file was aimed at LaTeX, and the ftplugin made some attempt to
accommodate both plain TeX and LaTeX.  Under development, vim 7.0
includes syntax and ftplugin files for ConTeXt, with file type context.
I think it is time to have separate file types for plain TeX and LaTeX,
and would like input from all interested users.

1. Are there other TeX variants (a.k.a. formats or flavors) that should
also be supported?

2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
        (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX
        (b) plaintex for plain TeX and tex for LaTeX
        (c) other suggestions?

     The argument for 2(a) is that it is more logical.  The argument for
2(b) is that it is more backwards compatible.  That is, I think there
are a lot more users who use LaTeX and would have to make adjustments if
we changed their file types to latex than there are users of plain TeX
who would be bothered if they had to change to plaintex.  Correct me if
I am wrong:  I think there are not many scripts out there that support
plain TeX rather than LaTeX.

                                        --Benji Fisher

P.S.  I maintain $VIMRUNTIME/ftplugin/tex.vim .
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Nikolai Weibull-11
On 3/2/06, Benji Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>      Up to vim 6.x, all TeX variants were given filetype tex .  The
> syntax file was aimed at LaTeX, and the ftplugin made some attempt to
> accommodate both plain TeX and LaTeX.  Under development, vim 7.0
> includes syntax and ftplugin files for ConTeXt, with file type context.
> I think it is time to have separate file types for plain TeX and LaTeX,
> and would like input from all interested users.

Perhaps this would make it possible for languages that are backwards
compatible with TeX (e.g., ConTeXt) to include the TeX syntax,
although it would perhaps need slight modification?

It sounds reasonable to break it up, and while 2b is backwards
compatible, major versions are perfectly suited for breakage in my
book.

  nikolai
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Moshe Kaminsky
In reply to this post by Benji Fisher
Hi,

* Benji Fisher <[hidden email]> [02/03/06 16:16]:
> 2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
> (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX
> (b) plaintex for plain TeX and tex for LaTeX
> (c) other suggestions?


What about plaintex for tex and latex for latex? This way the name says
exactly what flavour you are using, and if it's important for some one
to have either of them as 'tex', he can make a link or use :source or
re-set the filetype when the files type is set to 'tex'.

Moshe


attachment0 (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

A.J.Mechelynck
In reply to this post by Benji Fisher
Benji Fisher wrote:
[...]
> 2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
> (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX
> (b) plaintex for plain TeX and tex for LaTeX
> (c) other suggestions?
>
>      The argument for 2(a) is that it is more logical.  The argument for
> 2(b) is that it is more backwards compatible. [...]

Other suggestion:

- plaintex for plain TeX (ftplugin/plaintex.vim)
- latex for LaTeX (ftplugin/latex.vim)
- context for ConTeXt (ftplugin/context.vim)
- etc.
- tex (scripts/tex.vim) for fine-grained filetype detection, gets a file
in any TeX variant and "switches" it (as railroad engineers would call
it) to one of the other scripts. Beware about autocommand nesting.

Scripts such as syntax/tex.vim may check if they are sourced by some
other script (similar to what is done in html.vim, css.vim, etc.)


Best regards,
Tony.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Alan G Isaac
In reply to this post by Benji Fisher
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Benji Fisher apparently wrote:
> I think there are a lot more users who use LaTeX and would
> have to make adjustments if we changed their file types to
> latex than there are users of plain TeX who would be
> bothered if they had to change to plaintex.

Yes.  
Cheers,
Alan Isaac



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Alan G Isaac
In reply to this post by Moshe Kaminsky
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Moshe Kaminsky apparently wrote:
> What about plaintex for tex and latex for latex? This way
> the name says exactly what flavour you are using

How so? TeX != plaintex.
Maybe you meant:
"What about plaintex for plain tex and latex for LaTeX?"

Adding to the picture: consider new users, who are much
more likely to be LaTeX than plain tex users.
LaTeX users often do not even know about the plain tex
macros.  Plain tex users are generally better informed.
Make a choice that will minimize the puzzlement of new
users.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Charles E Campbell Jr
In reply to this post by Benji Fisher
Benji Fisher wrote:

>Vim Users and Developers:
>
>1. Are there other TeX variants (a.k.a. formats or flavors) that should
>also be supported?
>  
>

This can be a "big" area -- consider AMSTex add-ons to LaTeX, for
example.   I'm often being asked to
add on a new syntax item (which usually supports some CTAN package) for
syntax/tex.vim.  As I'm
one of the "unwashed horde" of LaTeX users and am not plain TeX user
myself, I don't want to maintain a
separate  syntax/plaintex.vim -- so it would need a volunteer.  
Preferably someone who actually
uses TeX!

BTW -- I'm the maintainer for syntax/tex.vim (As BF mentioned, he does
ftplugin/tex.vim).

>2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
> (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX
> (b) plaintex for plain TeX and tex for LaTeX
> (c) other suggestions?
>
>     The argument for 2(a) is that it is more logical.  The argument for
>2(b) is that it is more backwards compatible.
>

Bram M is usually adamant about backwards compatibility.  Personally, I
think 2b is the right choice
if there needs to be more *tex variants supported.  Has anyone stepped
up with a syntax/plaintex.vim?

Regards,
Chip Campbell


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Bugzilla from diwaker.lists@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Benji Fisher
On 3/2/06, Benji Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Vim Users and Developers:
>
>      Up to vim 6.x, all TeX variants were given filetype tex .  The
> syntax file was aimed at LaTeX, and the ftplugin made some attempt to
> accommodate both plain TeX and LaTeX.  Under development, vim 7.0
> includes syntax and ftplugin files for ConTeXt, with file type context.
> I think it is time to have separate file types for plain TeX and LaTeX,
> and would like input from all interested users.

+1

> 2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
>         (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX

+1

Diwaker
--
Web/Blog/Gallery: http://floatingsun.net/blog
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Aditya Mahajan
In reply to this post by Benji Fisher
<--- On Mar 2, Benji Fisher wrote --->

> Vim Users and Developers:
>
>     Up to vim 6.x, all TeX variants were given filetype tex .  The
> syntax file was aimed at LaTeX, and the ftplugin made some attempt to
> accommodate both plain TeX and LaTeX.  Under development, vim 7.0
> includes syntax and ftplugin files for ConTeXt, with file type context.
> I think it is time to have separate file types for plain TeX and LaTeX,
> and would like input from all interested users.
>
> 1. Are there other TeX variants (a.k.a. formats or flavors) that should
> also be supported?
>
> 2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
> (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX
> (b) plaintex for plain TeX and tex for LaTeX
> (c) other suggestions?
>
>     The argument for 2(a) is that it is more logical.  The argument for
> 2(b) is that it is more backwards compatible.  That is, I think there
> are a lot more users who use LaTeX and would have to make adjustments if
> we changed their file types to latex than there are users of plain TeX
> who would be bothered if they had to change to plaintex.  Correct me if
> I am wrong:  I think there are not many scripts out there that support
> plain TeX rather than LaTeX.

I think that (b) is better to avoid confusion to new users.



--
Aditya Mahajan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Suresh Govindachar`

   Aditya Mahajan

  >> 2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
  >> (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX
  >> (b) plaintex for plain TeX and tex for LaTeX
  >> (c) other suggestions?
  >>
  >> The argument for 2(a) is that it is more logical.  The argument
  >> for 2(b) is that it is more backwards compatible.  That is, I
  >> think there are a lot more users who use LaTeX and would have to
  >> make adjustments if we changed their file types to latex than
  >> there are users of plain TeX who would be bothered if they had
  >> to change to plaintex.  Correct me if I am wrong:  I think there
  >> are not many scripts out there that support plain TeX rather
  >> than LaTeX.

  > I think that (b) is better to avoid confusion to new users.

  Actually, isn't it the case that (b) is confusing to new users?
  In fact, by the arguments presented above, (a) would help new
  users by being logical, and (b) would help old users (who have
  written latex scripts while relying on the misleading filetype
  tex).  
 
  Sorry for not having kept track of who wrote what, but ...

  My inclination is to echo what someone else wrote, viz.,
  why perpetuate an error?  

  Also, someone else pointed out that tex and plaintex are not the
  same.  This is true.  It is also the case that plaintex is closer
  to tex than latex is; and plaintex and tex are very far from
  latex.  Not sure how these facts will help with deciding on a
  naming scheme.

  Regards,

  --Suresh
 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Alan G Isaac
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Suresh Govindachar apparently wrote:
> someone else pointed out that tex and plaintex are not the
> same.  This is true.  It is also the case that plaintex is
> closer to tex than latex is; and plaintex and tex are very
> far from latex.

I do not consider this a helpful way to describe things.
In contrast, the TeX FAQ offers an accurate statement:
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=LaTeXandPlain

        LaTeX is a program written in the programming
        language TeX. ...
        Plain TeX is also a program written in the
        programming language TeX.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Benji Fisher
In reply to this post by Charles E Campbell Jr
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:18:01AM -0500, Charles E. Campbell, Jr. wrote:

> Benji Fisher wrote:
>
> >1. Are there other TeX variants (a.k.a. formats or flavors) that should
> >also be supported?
>
> This can be a "big" area -- consider AMSTex add-ons to LaTeX, for
> example.   I'm often being asked to
> add on a new syntax item (which usually supports some CTAN package) for
> syntax/tex.vim.
>
> BTW -- I'm the maintainer for syntax/tex.vim (As BF mentioned, he does
> ftplugin/tex.vim).

     Is there a clean way to handle this?  Someone who wants an add-on
can always put it in ~/.vim/after/syntax/tex.vim .  Maybe a sample
script on www.vim.org would help.  Unfortunately, there is no analogue
for syntax files (Correct me if I am wrong!) of the ftplugin/tex_foo.vim
and ftplugin/tex/bar.vim variants that are :source'd automatically.

> >2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
> > (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX
> > (b) plaintex for plain TeX and tex for LaTeX
> > (c) other suggestions?
> >
> >    The argument for 2(a) is that it is more logical.  The argument for
> >2(b) is that it is more backwards compatible.
>
> Bram M is usually adamant about backwards compatibility.  Personally, I
> think 2b is the right choice
> if there needs to be more *tex variants supported.

     OK, a vote for 2(b).

                                        --Benji Fisher
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Benji Fisher
In reply to this post by Alan G Isaac
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:14:06AM -0500, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Moshe Kaminsky apparently wrote:
> > What about plaintex for tex and latex for latex? This way
> > the name says exactly what flavour you are using
>
> How so? TeX != plaintex.
> Maybe you meant:
> "What about plaintex for plain tex and latex for LaTeX?"

     Does anyone actually use TeX (without any format, just the
primitives)?  Or do I misunderstand?

> Adding to the picture: consider new users, who are much
> more likely to be LaTeX than plain tex users.
> LaTeX users often do not even know about the plain tex
> macros.  Plain tex users are generally better informed.
> Make a choice that will minimize the puzzlement of new
> users.

     Maybe I am typical of plain TeX users, with my well-worn copy of
the TeXbook (second printing, from 1984) still on my bookshelf.

     I will take that as a vote for plaintex and tex.

                                        --Benji Fisher
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Matthew Winn
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:21:27PM -0500, Benji Fisher wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:14:06AM -0500, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Moshe Kaminsky apparently wrote:
> > > What about plaintex for tex and latex for latex? This way
> > > the name says exactly what flavour you are using
> >
> > How so? TeX != plaintex.
> > Maybe you meant:
> > "What about plaintex for plain tex and latex for LaTeX?"
>
>      Does anyone actually use TeX (without any format, just the
> primitives)?  Or do I misunderstand?

I doubt anyone uses raw TeX for anything other than creating their own
macro packages that they then \input as required.  That's certainly
where most of my use of the TeX primitives has been.  (Using the TeX
primitives is like writing in C by declaring as many register variables
as your hardware has real registers, and then performing all operations
on those variables alone.)

> > Adding to the picture: consider new users, who are much
> > more likely to be LaTeX than plain tex users.
> > LaTeX users often do not even know about the plain tex
> > macros.  Plain tex users are generally better informed.
> > Make a choice that will minimize the puzzlement of new
> > users.
>
>      Maybe I am typical of plain TeX users, with my well-worn copy of
> the TeXbook (second printing, from 1984) still on my bookshelf.
>
>      I will take that as a vote for plaintex and tex.

Do inexperienced LaTeX users think of it as TeX or do they know it as
LaTeX and only later learn that it's built on top of something else
named TeX?  If the latter, using "latex" would be less confusing than
using "tex".

--
Matthew Winn ([hidden email])
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Aditya Mahajan
In reply to this post by Suresh Govindachar`
<--- On Mar 2, Suresh Govindachar wrote --->

>
>   Aditya Mahajan
>
>  >> 2. What file types should we use for plain TeX and LaTeX:
>  >> (a) tex for plain TeX and latex for LaTeX
>  >> (b) plaintex for plain TeX and tex for LaTeX
>  >> (c) other suggestions?
>  >>
>  >> The argument for 2(a) is that it is more logical.  The argument
>  >> for 2(b) is that it is more backwards compatible.  That is, I
>  >> think there are a lot more users who use LaTeX and would have to
>  >> make adjustments if we changed their file types to latex than
>  >> there are users of plain TeX who would be bothered if they had
>  >> to change to plaintex.  Correct me if I am wrong:  I think there
>  >> are not many scripts out there that support plain TeX rather
>  >> than LaTeX.
>
>  > I think that (b) is better to avoid confusion to new users.
>
>  Actually, isn't it the case that (b) is confusing to new users?
>  In fact, by the arguments presented above, (a) would help new
>  users by being logical, and (b) would help old users (who have
>  written latex scripts while relying on the misleading filetype
>  tex).

Most new users do not write their own plugins/ftplugins. They download
what is existing from vim.org. Not all of the existing plugins will be
modified to take care of the new naming convention. Installing such
plugins will be confusing to the new user. For an old user, who
understands vim conventions, modifying his/her mappings to take care
of any new convention will not be difficult.


--
Aditya Mahajan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: RFC: filetypes for TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXT (others?)

Alan G Isaac
In reply to this post by Benji Fisher
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Benji Fisher apparently wrote:
> Does anyone actually use TeX (without any format, just the
> primitives)?

"Anyone"?
You mean document producers, who generally use LaTeX but
sometimes plain TeX, or others?

If the former, I hope not.

If others, then certainly.
(By others, I mean those producing LaTeX, enhancing plain
TeX, or other projects that rely on TeX such as
http://www.pytex.org/ ).

Cheers,
Alan Isaac

PS I suppose my "vote" would be for plaintex and latex,
but if tex is to go to one of these, it should be to LaTeX.