Re: [Jed-users-l] [PATCH] TeX mode: Replace three dots by \ldots instead of {\ldots}

["Carlos R. Mafra" <crmafra2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 12 May 2011 at 21:12:41 -0400, John E. Davis wrote:
> Guenter Milde <milde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > so we might need to distinguish text and math mode (unless you prefer
> > the "dense" variant).
> 
> Based upon the following "table", I think that \ldots{} performs the
> best overall.  Perhaps I am missing something.  Thanks, --John

I take my original patch back -- as it makes sense only for plain TeX 
users for which using \ldots in text mode is not accepted by 'tex' 
(see p.73 of "The TeXbook").

However, I think that the automatic replacement should not cause compile 
errors for Plain TeX; and the current situation in this regard is the worst
possible -- {\ldots} in text mode does not compile, and in math mode 
produces wrong spacing.

So the correct solution would require jed knowing which mode we are and doing
the replacements accordingly in a way which does not cause problems for _both_
plain TeX and LaTeX. Something like this:

  * In math mode: \ldots (with no trailing space)
  * In text mode: \dots\
  
because \dots\ in text mode (note that it's not \ldots\) compiles for both and 
produces the correct spacing, that is, typing in text mode:

Hmmm \dots\ I wonder why?

is correct for plain TeX and LaTeX, and is the input which makes sense. If _only_
LaTeX is supposed to be supported, then \ldots\ of \ldots{} would both be OK.

Analogously, typing in math mode:

$$ A(1,2,\ldots,N) $$
$$ T_{12\ldots N} $$

give the correct spacings. Typing \ldots{} in math mode works from a technical point 
of view, but does not make sense from the perspective of what the intentions are 
(for which typing {} is superfluos).

If someone can code that, great! :-)



  






_______________________________________________
Jed-users-l mailing list
Jed-users-l@xxxxxxxx
http://mailman.jtan.com/mailman/listinfo/jed-users-l