appears to be useless and it gives me a very bad looking output. I removed it and it appears to be fine. How can I make this macro permanent ?
Welcome to the wonderful world of umpteen ways to do anything in LaTeX...
fontenc is a package that allows fonts to be included via their definition names (technobabble, ignore this explanation). To be honest, I'm not sure what subtleties of babel may need this for.
babel is the multi-lingual language support package. The old way of doing other languages was to include a french.sty or german.sty in your \\document header. (Ie, \\usepackage{french}) That's still the simplest. But the most fragile. babel fixes a lot of the problems with the .sty files.
For one thing, it lets you have multiple languages in one document, if you need to switch back and forth. Just list the languages you'll be using, with the default last in the list, such as \\usepackage[english, francais]{babel}. Now you can use either, but French is the default. You can also provide language lists to the entire document for *all* packages to pick up by stating \\documentclass[english,francais]{article}. Then you just need to say \\usepackage{babel} later on.
You can switch languages by \\selectlanguage{<language>}, or you can typeset just a snippet via \\foreignlanguage{<language>}[<text>}.
Why all this bother? Because each language has capitalization and hyphenation rules, as well as simple heading titles, and this way you can automatically observe them on the fly.
As to how to make this 'permanent', look into TeXShop's templates. They allow you to set up a blank document however you want. Saves tons of time.
Strange, when I said you can use your keyboard as always, I meant that you can type directly in the editor characters with accents. It just works and the compilation does not give errors. Oh, perhaps you should change the TeXShop preferences, Document->Encoding->Iso Latin 1.
I installed iTeXMac and TeXShop and played with them.
To be honest, going to this LaTeX thing is a complete and total downgrade to me. It's horribly fastidious to write a simple equation with that system. I tried to write the Einstein equation :
$R_{\\mu\
u} - {1\\over 2} g_{\\mu\
u}R=-\\kappa T_{\\mu\
u}$
while it's so direct with Expressionist. GEEZ ! In Expressionist, it took me seconds to do ! I can't believe it !!
Actually, it is exactly this kind of writing that gives you total control on layout. If for some reason you want change (continuously) the size or the exact position of your subscripts, or your sub-subscripts, or even the font, you can do it with other special commands. However, LaTeX has some restrictions since it is essentially a set of macros on top of TeX. It is TeX, to be exact, that will leave you to do whatever you want in your document, if you know how to.
About writing speed: at the beginning, it is difficult to write formulas quickly. But when you get used to, it will be much faster and more pleasant.
Strange, when I said you can use your keyboard as always, I meant that you can type directly in the editor characters with accents. It just works and the compilation does not give errors. Oh, perhaps you should change the TeXShop preferences, Document->Encoding->Iso Latin 1.
PB, I just tried this, and it just stripped the characters out completely.
Strange, when I said you can use your keyboard as always, I meant that you can type directly in the editor characters with accents. It just works and the compilation does not give errors. Oh, perhaps you should change the TeXShop preferences, Document->Encoding->Iso Latin 1.
HOLLY S*** ! IT WORKS !
Thanks a lot !
Another thing : I can't find the Wedge product in the floating palette (ya know, the reverse v, outer product for mathematicians).
Another thing : I can't find the Wedge product in the floating palette (ya know, the reverse v, outer product for mathematicians).
You're going to kick yourself.
Try \\wedge
Edit: There are *hundreds* more symbols, etc, than the palettes show, and new packages can create new ones all the time. (One of the reasons I tend to like rolling my own LaTeX code - no GUI gets them all.) The best synopsis I've seen of the basic installed ones is in Goossens, Mittelbach and Samarin's _A LaTeX Companion_, pgs 218-222. Five pages of nothing but symbols and their commands. Since these are produced by mathematicians for mathematicians, if you don't know what the command is, try just \\<nameofsymbol>. Usually it works, within reason. Those three little dots in an upward facing triangle? \\therefore. \\subset, \\superset, \\leftarrow, \\forall, \\exists, \\sum, etc... they actually make it readable like natural language in many cases.
PB, I just tried this, and it just stripped the characters out completely.
âbcdéfg became bcdfg.
If you have an open document, TeXShop will not apply the encoding modification to that. You first set the encoding in preferences, and then you open a new document to test.
And what about fonts ? I need to use a script font for the "lagrangian" of field theory. It doesn't show in the palette of TeXShop. I have the impression TeXShop could beef-up its palette a lot.
In iTeXMac, there are many fonts and symbols showing in the palette, but I'm unable to use them. Especially amsfonts and mathrsys which I need.
Do I have to download them from somewhere ?
How do you compare iTeXMac and TeXShop, by the way ? Which one do you prefer ?
GUI palettes have to be stripped down to only the most common items to be of any real use, otherwise they just become unwieldy and cumbersome to use. So unless you're just doing basic equation typesetting, you're not going to find what you want, most of the time.
Hence, learning the commands. Luckily, as I also pointed out, it's generally easy to figure out, and there is a *lot* of documentation out there. PB's links and my book recommendation will get you far. Also, Kopka and Daly's _A Guide to LaTeX2e_ is excellent.
Quote:
And what about fonts ? I need to use a script font for the "lagrangian" of field theory. It doesn't show in the palette of TeXShop. I have the impression TeXShop could beef-up its palette a lot.
It's actually in there... I assume the Lagrangian script you're talking about is the mathcal font. (Or, if it's the High German, try \\frak{text}).
But, this is exactly my point - no GUI will get you everything, much better to learn the commands. You'll be quicker in the long run as well.
And why the professional journals require TeX? Because it is way superior in every aspect from anything easily available to science people. That's why scientists use TeX/LaTeX, that's why professional journals require TeX/LaTeX.
Nobody requires you to do anything because it will make your life better. They require you to do things to make their lives better. The professional journals that require papers be submitted in TeX do so because it makes the job of the typesetter easier, not to make the author's life better. To believe otherwise is to betray a naïveté greater than that of believers in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
And, as I stated before, I haven't seen a professional journal *require* TeX submission in several years.
PDF is by far the outstanding winner for preferred format, with LaTeX a distant second, and Word only twice in the last er, 10 years. PDF makes it trivial for the final typesetter, as long as you use the proper LaTeX style or Word template that they provide.
The vast majority of the people in tech submission use LaTeX because they do, indeed, choose to for ease and elegance over tools like Word. PDF frees you to use the tool you prefer, and most people still prefer LaTeX for good reasons.
GUI palettes have to be stripped down to only the most common items to be of any real use, otherwise they just become unwieldy and cumbersome to use. So unless you're just doing basic equation typesetting, you're not going to find what you want, most of the time.
But, this is exactly my point - no GUI will get you everything, much better to learn the commands. You'll be quicker in the long run as well.
I don't agree with this. I can make any equation with a single palette, customised in Expressionist. Most of the time, I use macros with the keyboard, but all commands are on my customised palette. All symbols and math expressions are there and it's not so clumsy. So it is clear to me that it's possible to implement something like this in , say, TeXShop. Its palette can (and should) be beefed up, with maybe few pop-up.
Another example : in iTeXMac, there is a right drawer which shows many symbols. More than in TeXShop. It's far away from the perfection, but it's a little bit better than TeXShop. Especially for the special symbols I use from times to times, but not often enough to remember all the time.
Maybe I should post a pict of my Expressionist palette here, but I'm not sure to know how to do it. I'm not at my own computer right now anyway.
And, as I stated before, I haven't seen a professional journal *require* TeX submission in several years.
PDF is by far the outstanding winner for preferred format, with LaTeX a distant second, and Word only twice in the last er, 10 years. PDF makes it trivial for the final typesetter, as long as you use the proper LaTeX style or Word template that they provide.
Unfortunately, in the social sciences and humanities it isn't uncommon for journals to require submissions in Word or WordPerfect format (with Word usually preferred). It is also not uncommon for journals in these areas to refuse submissions in TeX/LaTeX format. Very frustrating, all in all.
Comments
Originally posted by PB
Declare these
\\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\\usepackage[francais]{babel}
before the \\begin{document}.
Thanks for the trick. The line
\\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
appears to be useless and it gives me a very bad looking output. I removed it and it appears to be fine. How can I make this macro permanent ?
Is there a way to use the keyboard as normal, for the special caracters like é, è. Ã*. ù, etc ?
Originally posted by Kali
Thanks for the trick. The line
\\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
appears to be useless and it gives me a very bad looking output. I removed it and it appears to be fine. How can I make this macro permanent ?
Is there a way to use the keyboard as normal, for the special caracters like é, è. Ã*. ù, etc ?
You're going to have to describe by what you mean as 'normal'... to strike an é, for instance, I have to hit (on my US keyboard) opt-e, then e again.
You *can* still use the Macros setup, you know...
But what about the letters accents ?
Originally posted by Kickaha
You're going to have to describe by what you mean as 'normal'... to strike an é, for instance, I have to hit (on my US keyboard) opt-e, then e again.
You *can* still use the Macros setup, you know...
I have a French canadian keyboard. I have keys for è, Ã*, é, ù, etc.
What I'm asking for, is a way to type é in my text editor, to see it like it should be in the window, and make TeXShop compile the file without error message. You see, when there are many \\'e codes everywhere in the text file, it is very hard to read and to edit. I want the beast to know that an é is an é. That's all. I don't want to see \\'e in the text file.
Originally posted by Kali
\\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
appears to be useless and it gives me a very bad looking output. I removed it and it appears to be fine. How can I make this macro permanent ?
Welcome to the wonderful world of umpteen ways to do anything in LaTeX...
fontenc is a package that allows fonts to be included via their definition names (technobabble, ignore this explanation). To be honest, I'm not sure what subtleties of babel may need this for.
babel is the multi-lingual language support package. The old way of doing other languages was to include a french.sty or german.sty in your \\document header. (Ie, \\usepackage{french}) That's still the simplest. But the most fragile. babel fixes a lot of the problems with the .sty files.
For one thing, it lets you have multiple languages in one document, if you need to switch back and forth. Just list the languages you'll be using, with the default last in the list, such as \\usepackage[english, francais]{babel}. Now you can use either, but French is the default. You can also provide language lists to the entire document for *all* packages to pick up by stating \\documentclass[english,francais]{article}. Then you just need to say \\usepackage{babel} later on.
You can switch languages by \\selectlanguage{<language>}, or you can typeset just a snippet via \\foreignlanguage{<language>}[<text>}.
Why all this bother? Because each language has capitalization and hyphenation rules, as well as simple heading titles, and this way you can automatically observe them on the fly.
As to how to make this 'permanent', look into TeXShop's templates. They allow you to set up a blank document however you want. Saves tons of time.
Originally posted by Kali
I have a French canadian keyboard. I have keys for è, Ã*, é, ù, etc.
What I'm asking for, is a way to type é in my text editor, to see it like it should be in the window, and make TeXShop compile the file without error message. You see, when there are many \\'e codes everywhere in the text file, it is very hard to read and to edit. I want the beast to know that an é is an é. That's all. I don't want to see \\'e in the text file.
I was afraid you were going to say that.
I'm thinking... TextExtras. Let me look into it and get back to you.
Edit: Just so you know what I'm thinking, there are utilities that allow you set, on a per app basis, text replacement macros. So if you type é in TeXShop, it will insert the proper code into the document on the fly. As for not *seeing* it, I'm afraid you need to talk to Richard Koch and friends, the developers. TeXShop is *not* WYSIWYG, and LaTeX was developed in the 70's before Unicode or even, really, international character support.
Edit2: Or... TeXShop lets you define the scripts to run your LaTeX typesetting job. You *could* have a simple script that strips out the accented characters and replaces them with the proper codes between TeXShop and pdflatex... you'd see é, pdflatex would get {\\'e}. Of course, this would mean that you wouldn't be able to share these files or typeset them outside of TeXShop easily... Oooooh, so many ways to geek out over this.
Originally posted by Kali
I have a French canadian keyboard. I have keys for è, Ã*, é, ù, etc.
What I'm asking for, is a way to type é in my text editor, to see it like it should be in the window, and make TeXShop compile the file without error message.
Strange, when I said you can use your keyboard as always, I meant that you can type directly in the editor characters with accents. It just works and the compilation does not give errors. Oh, perhaps you should change the TeXShop preferences, Document->Encoding->Iso Latin 1.
Originally posted by Kali
I installed iTeXMac and TeXShop and played with them.
To be honest, going to this LaTeX thing is a complete and total downgrade to me. It's horribly fastidious to write a simple equation with that system. I tried to write the Einstein equation :
$R_{\\mu\
u} - {1\\over 2} g_{\\mu\
u}R=-\\kappa T_{\\mu\
u}$
while it's so direct with Expressionist. GEEZ ! In Expressionist, it took me seconds to do ! I can't believe it !!
Actually, it is exactly this kind of writing that gives you total control on layout. If for some reason you want change (continuously) the size or the exact position of your subscripts, or your sub-subscripts, or even the font, you can do it with other special commands. However, LaTeX has some restrictions since it is essentially a set of macros on top of TeX. It is TeX, to be exact, that will leave you to do whatever you want in your document, if you know how to.
About writing speed: at the beginning, it is difficult to write formulas quickly. But when you get used to, it will be much faster and more pleasant.
Originally posted by PB
Strange, when I said you can use your keyboard as always, I meant that you can type directly in the editor characters with accents. It just works and the compilation does not give errors. Oh, perhaps you should change the TeXShop preferences, Document->Encoding->Iso Latin 1.
PB, I just tried this, and it just stripped the characters out completely.
âbcdéfg became bcdfg.
Originally posted by PB
Strange, when I said you can use your keyboard as always, I meant that you can type directly in the editor characters with accents. It just works and the compilation does not give errors. Oh, perhaps you should change the TeXShop preferences, Document->Encoding->Iso Latin 1.
HOLLY S*** ! IT WORKS !
Thanks a lot !
Another thing : I can't find the Wedge product in the floating palette (ya know, the reverse v, outer product for mathematicians).
Originally posted by Kali
HOLLY S*** ! IT WORKS !
Thanks a lot !
Another thing : I can't find the Wedge product in the floating palette (ya know, the reverse v, outer product for mathematicians).
You're going to kick yourself.
Try \\wedge
Edit: There are *hundreds* more symbols, etc, than the palettes show, and new packages can create new ones all the time. (One of the reasons I tend to like rolling my own LaTeX code - no GUI gets them all.) The best synopsis I've seen of the basic installed ones is in Goossens, Mittelbach and Samarin's _A LaTeX Companion_, pgs 218-222. Five pages of nothing but symbols and their commands. Since these are produced by mathematicians for mathematicians, if you don't know what the command is, try just \\<nameofsymbol>. Usually it works, within reason. Those three little dots in an upward facing triangle? \\therefore. \\subset, \\superset, \\leftarrow, \\forall, \\exists, \\sum, etc... they actually make it readable like natural language in many cases.
\\forall x, y \\in S : x = y^3
Easy!
Originally posted by Kickaha
PB, I just tried this, and it just stripped the characters out completely.
âbcdéfg became bcdfg.
If you have an open document, TeXShop will not apply the encoding modification to that. You first set the encoding in preferences, and then you open a new document to test.
Since this isn't a problem for me, I'm not going to worry about it.
Originally posted by Kickaha
You're going to kick yourself.
Try \\wedge
Cool. It works. But why it isn't in the palette ?
And what about fonts ? I need to use a script font for the "lagrangian" of field theory. It doesn't show in the palette of TeXShop. I have the impression TeXShop could beef-up its palette a lot.
In iTeXMac, there are many fonts and symbols showing in the palette, but I'm unable to use them. Especially amsfonts and mathrsys which I need.
Do I have to download them from somewhere ?
How do you compare iTeXMac and TeXShop, by the way ? Which one do you prefer ?
Originally posted by Kali
Cool. It works. But why it isn't in the palette ?
See above.
GUI palettes have to be stripped down to only the most common items to be of any real use, otherwise they just become unwieldy and cumbersome to use. So unless you're just doing basic equation typesetting, you're not going to find what you want, most of the time.
Hence, learning the commands. Luckily, as I also pointed out, it's generally easy to figure out, and there is a *lot* of documentation out there. PB's links and my book recommendation will get you far. Also, Kopka and Daly's _A Guide to LaTeX2e_ is excellent.
And what about fonts ? I need to use a script font for the "lagrangian" of field theory. It doesn't show in the palette of TeXShop. I have the impression TeXShop could beef-up its palette a lot.
It's actually in there... I assume the Lagrangian script you're talking about is the mathcal font. (Or, if it's the High German, try \\frak{text}).
But, this is exactly my point - no GUI will get you everything, much better to learn the commands. You'll be quicker in the long run as well.
Originally posted by PB
....
And why the professional journals require TeX? Because it is way superior in every aspect from anything easily available to science people. That's why scientists use TeX/LaTeX, that's why professional journals require TeX/LaTeX.
Nobody requires you to do anything because it will make your life better. They require you to do things to make their lives better. The professional journals that require papers be submitted in TeX do so because it makes the job of the typesetter easier, not to make the author's life better. To believe otherwise is to betray a naïveté greater than that of believers in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
PDF is by far the outstanding winner for preferred format, with LaTeX a distant second, and Word only twice in the last er, 10 years. PDF makes it trivial for the final typesetter, as long as you use the proper LaTeX style or Word template that they provide.
The vast majority of the people in tech submission use LaTeX because they do, indeed, choose to for ease and elegance over tools like Word. PDF frees you to use the tool you prefer, and most people still prefer LaTeX for good reasons.
Originally posted by Kickaha
GUI palettes have to be stripped down to only the most common items to be of any real use, otherwise they just become unwieldy and cumbersome to use. So unless you're just doing basic equation typesetting, you're not going to find what you want, most of the time.
But, this is exactly my point - no GUI will get you everything, much better to learn the commands. You'll be quicker in the long run as well.
I don't agree with this. I can make any equation with a single palette, customised in Expressionist. Most of the time, I use macros with the keyboard, but all commands are on my customised palette. All symbols and math expressions are there and it's not so clumsy. So it is clear to me that it's possible to implement something like this in , say, TeXShop. Its palette can (and should) be beefed up, with maybe few pop-up.
Another example : in iTeXMac, there is a right drawer which shows many symbols. More than in TeXShop. It's far away from the perfection, but it's a little bit better than TeXShop. Especially for the special symbols I use from times to times, but not often enough to remember all the time.
Maybe I should post a pict of my Expressionist palette here, but I'm not sure to know how to do it. I'm not at my own computer right now anyway.
Originally posted by Kickaha
And, as I stated before, I haven't seen a professional journal *require* TeX submission in several years.
PDF is by far the outstanding winner for preferred format, with LaTeX a distant second, and Word only twice in the last er, 10 years. PDF makes it trivial for the final typesetter, as long as you use the proper LaTeX style or Word template that they provide.
Unfortunately, in the social sciences and humanities it isn't uncommon for journals to require submissions in Word or WordPerfect format (with Word usually preferred). It is also not uncommon for journals in these areas to refuse submissions in TeX/LaTeX format. Very frustrating, all in all.