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

16 messages
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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 .
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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.
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

 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])