(more accurately known as typographically synchronous editing).

Just checking in case I have missed something while my head was below
the parapet...

• Apart from LyX, am I right in saying that there are no
typographically synchronous editors for LaTeX [any more]?

• That is, existing editors rely on two panes: code edit and PDF
preview.

Peter

At Tue, 24 Jan 2023 21:07:58 +0000 Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie> wrote:

>
> (more accurately known as typographically synchronous editing).
>
> Just checking in case I have missed something while my head was below
> the parapet...
>
> • Apart from LyX, am I right in saying that there are no
> typographically synchronous editors for LaTeX [any more]?

Yes. LyX is/was the only tool that came close to being anything like a "Word
Processor" in the TeX/LaTeX world.

>
> • That is, existing editors rely on two panes: code edit and PDF
> preview.

That is correct. Most TeX/LaTeX users have much the same work flow as GNU
Compiler users: a plain text (ASCII code) editor in one window/screen/pane and
a compile output in another window/screen/pane, with maybe a PDF display in a
third window (eg xpdf or the like). *Some* of us even run TeX/LaTeX from the
same Makefile(s) as our program code compilers (esp. if we are using Doxygen).

TeX/LaTeX is not equal to a "Word Processor". Mostly a completely different
workflow.

>
> Peter
>
>

--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

On 25/01/2023 05:51, Robert Heller wrote:
[...]
> Yes. LyX is/was the only tool that came close to being anything like
> a "Word Processor" in the TeX/LaTeX world.
> [...]
> *Some* of us even run TeX/LaTeX from the same Makefile(s) as our
> program code compilers (esp. if we are using Doxygen).

Guilty as charged :-)

> TeX/LaTeX is not equal to a "Word Processor". Mostly a completely
> different workflow.

There have been (and are) good typographically-synchronous XML editors,
and even one which could switch mathematical editing between SGML and
TeX (and losslessly back!), but LyX appears to be the only viable
close-to-WYSIWYG editor for LaTeX.

Peter

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:52:00 +0000, Peter Flynn wrote:
> On 25/01/2023 05:51, Robert Heller wrote:
> [...]
>> Yes. LyX is/was the only tool that came close to being anything like
>> a "Word Processor" in the TeX/LaTeX world.
>> [...]
>> *Some* of us even run TeX/LaTeX from the same Makefile(s) as our
>> program code compilers (esp. if we are using Doxygen).
>
> Guilty as charged :-)
>
>> TeX/LaTeX is not equal to a "Word Processor". Mostly a completely
>> different workflow.
>
> There have been (and are) good typographically-synchronous XML editors,
> and even one which could switch mathematical editing between SGML and
> TeX (and losslessly back!), but LyX appears to be the only viable
> close-to-WYSIWYG editor for LaTeX.

There have been attempts to implement such a thing. I
recall a project that I think was called VorTeX years ago.
Presumably the project failed.

On 26/01/2023 16:33, Bob Tennent wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:52:00 +0000, Peter Flynn wrote:
> > On 25/01/2023 05:51, Robert Heller wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Yes. LyX is/was the only tool that came close to being anything like
> >> a "Word Processor" in the TeX/LaTeX world.
> >> [...]
> >> *Some* of us even run TeX/LaTeX from the same Makefile(s) as our
> >> program code compilers (esp. if we are using Doxygen).
> >
> > Guilty as charged :-)
> >
> >> TeX/LaTeX is not equal to a "Word Processor". Mostly a completely
> >> different workflow.
> >
> > There have been (and are) good typographically-synchronous XML editors,
> > and even one which could switch mathematical editing between SGML and
> > TeX (and losslessly back!), but LyX appears to be the only viable
> > close-to-WYSIWYG editor for LaTeX.
>
> There have been attempts to implement such a thing. I
> recall a project that I think was called VorTeX years ago.
> Presumably the project failed.

VorTeX dated from the mid-1990s, I think.
VTeX (Visual TeX) had a close-to-synchronous formatted display.
Instant Preview and the TeX daemon is also very close.
Scientific Word is probably the closest to pure synchronous direct-edit
typesetting in TeX.
Several commercial systems used TeX as their internal engine.

FWIW
Peter

How would this even be possible?

\begin{something}
something else
\end{something

I am a great fan of LyX.

On 24/01/2023 23:07, Peter Flynn wrote:
> (more accurately known as typographically synchronous editing).
>
> Just checking in case I have missed something while my head was below
> the parapet...
>
>  • Apart from LyX, am I right in saying that there are no
>    typographically synchronous editors for LaTeX [any more]?
>
>  • That is, existing editors rely on two panes: code edit and PDF
>    preview.
>
> Peter

Peter pointed out to me in a private email quite correctly that there is
a closing brace missing on the \end statement. Well spotted :-)-O

This admittedly inadvertent error illustrates the issue very well
however.

How would a "continuous" editor know when the brace is going to be
closed, or even when the "right" \end{} comes?

\begin{something}
something else
\begin{another}
another else
end{another}
\end{something

How would it deal with the missing backslash on the second \end, the
missing brace and/or similar errors?

I don't think it's really possible.

What I have seen is that on every editor save the latex run is kicked
off. That works reasonably well on short documents unless you are a
friend of "save early, save often" :-)-O

I still maintain, that for pure text capture, LyX works very well.

As I wrote before, I have a 1000 page "handbook" which consist of 1 LyX
Master document and 24 "child" documents which are realized as include
files in LaTeX. Each of the children knows it is a child and can be
compiled into a PDF itself (from then LyX editing window).

Each of these includes in the preamble an 'include.tex' which among
other things notices whether it is a "child" run or the complete one,
and if the former sets portrait mode and smaller font, if the latter
landscape and slightly larger. It sets the RCS version (LyX can do GIT
and SVN but as for my purposes RCS (single user) is more than enough I
never tried these) into the footer so in the final product I can see
which chapter has what version and so forth.

Then I have a 550 line Makefile which sorts things out. I mostly use
the command line on the Mac anyway.

LyX by itself knows how often it needs to run and how to get the
bibliography, glossary and index done so no latexmk is required (which I
like very much and use for the bare metal LaTeX stuff a lot). With
judicious use of labels in the Makefile I can use perl to change
(boolean) switches in the 'include.tex' to change behavior.

And for the purists, once the text is captured you can export to the
(La)TeX of your fancy and go to town. But, in the actual LaTeX spirit
of separating form from content that normalized 'include.tex' works
remarkably well.

greetings, el

On 2023-01-27 00:53 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> How would this even be possible?
>
> \begin{something}
> something else
> \end{something
>
> I am a great fan of LyX.
>
> On 24/01/2023 23:07, Peter Flynn wrote:
>> (more accurately known as typographically synchronous editing).
>>
>> Just checking in case I have missed something while my head was below
>> the parapet...
>>
>> • Apart from LyX, am I right in saying that there are no
>> typographically synchronous editors for LaTeX [any more]?
>>
>> • That is, existing editors rely on two panes: code edit and PDF
>> preview.
>>
>> Peter
>

On 27/01/2023 07:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Peter pointed out to me in a private email quite correctly that there is
> a closing brace missing on the \end statement. Well spotted :-)-O

I had problems with my connection last night and didn't know that email
had gone through :-0

> How would a "continuous" editor know when the brace is going to be
> closed, or even when the "right" \end{} comes?
>
> \begin{something}
>     something else
>         \begin{another}
>             another else
>         end{another}
> \end{something

It can't. Let's use a real-life example. Suppose <something> there is
{sidebar}, and we have defined a sidebar environment in a package which
will set the material in a narrowed box (let us say 0.5\textwidth) and
then position it against the outer edge of the page and allow the
preceding/following text to flow around it like a figure; except that a
sidebar is not a float.

So in the interface, we position the pointer in the text at the point
where we want the sidebar to appear, and click on Insert > Sidebar. The
editor pops up a panel where we type in the sidebar contents, and when
we OK it, it positions itself with its vertical centre aligned with the
line where the pointer was, and its left or right edge level with the
margin, according to whether the page number is odd or even.

The difficulty is that we then need to interrupt the flow of *previously
entered* text, as well as text yet to come (or text already present) for
as many lines as the height of the sidebar occupies, and reset them into
the remaining 0.5\textwidth space beside the sidebar, flowing around it.

*Inside* the sidebar it could basically be a minipage, so managing that
content is probably straightforward. I have also made assumptions here
about widths and positions, all of which would have to be preconfigured
in the package, and available as parameters for the author to set.

The principle, however, is that starting a new environment (whether in a
traditional plantext interface with a real-time synchronous rendering
alongside, or in a singe-pane synchronous interface) means that all the
typographic parameters must become the temporary defaults **up to but
not including the next interruption to vertical mode** (normally the
next \par or the start of an existing environment below). This is how
list mode in a wordprocessor operates during writing: any existing text
below is unaffected which you continue to write items, and Enter
performs a new item routine.

> How would it deal with the missing backslash on the second \end, the
> missing brace and/or similar errors?

In a synchronous typographical editor it's not possible because the
author never types the backslashes or curly braces: they are hidden in
the saved file, and the environment is selected by the user from a menu.

> I don't think it's really possible.

It is definitely possible, and several programs have done it. LyX does
it, in a limited manner. Scientific Word does it, and the old Arbortext
Editor interface did it, back in the days when it used TeX inside
instead of SGML.

> What I have seen is that on every editor save the latex run is
> kicked off. That works reasonably well on short documents unless you
> are a friend of "save early, save often" :-)-O

Yes, this is the way most semi-synchronous systems work. They run TeX
internally at every paragraph break or something, even each keystroke if
the file is short enough and you keep the TeX operating as a daemon,
rather like realtime Java systems don't fire up a new JVM every time but
keep one running in the background and simply spawn an instance when needed.

> I still maintain, that for pure text capture, LyX works very well.

Yep.

> As I wrote before, I have a 1000 page "handbook" which consist of 1
> LyX Master document and 24 "child" documents which are realized as
> include files in LaTeX. Each of the children knows it is a child and
> can be compiled into a PDF itself (from then LyX editing window).

A large amount of documentation in XML is produced by a similar process
(XProc), using workflow pipeline managers such as Calabash. Pipelines
can of course include LaTeX as a workflow component to generate the PDF.

> LyX by itself knows how often it needs to run and how to get the
> bibliography, glossary and index done

That is essential.

Thanks for the description.

Peter

In article <k3gcloFg2vcU1@mid.individual.net>, peter@silmaril.ie says...
>
> Scientific Word is probably the closest to pure synchronous direct-
edit
> typesetting in TeX.

I just checked, the company selling Scientific Word has gone out of
business in 2021. The program, however, was made available as freeware
(as in beer) on https://www.mackichan.com/techtalk/v60/FreeSW.htm. There
is a promise to make it free (as in speech) on github once licensing
issues are solved.

I downloaded the files, but didn't have the time yet to take a look.

Sincerely

Engelbert