Typically an Emmet command starts at a line or after a space, like h1>{Header} or like text sup>{super}. However, I am writing something like x<sup>2</sup> or x<sub>2</sub> over and over again, and can't obviously use an Emmet command to do this with a small number of keystrokes. If I write xsup>{2} and tab, obviously that's not going to work. I can write x sup>{2} and tab, but then I have to go back and erase my space.
Now I know I could do something like this:
{x}+(sup>{2})
But the problem with THIS solution is that, in fact, I'm often writing much longer lines of mathematical expressions involving many instances of super- and sub-scripts. In fact, pretty often I write super-scripts that have their own sub-scripts. When I pursue this sort of solution, I really have to plan out my entire Emmet command before I start writing it, and then if I made a mistake it is not easy to go back and edit. It's much better if I can write these in small increments that can be fixed in equally small and local ways, as is usually the flow when writing in Emmet.
So what I was hoping for, if it exists, is some sort of "start" symbol for Emmet commands other than space. For instance, if $ were such a symbol, then x$sup>{2} would do the job. If such a symbol existed, it would mark the start of Emmet code and get auto-removed after tabbing.
Alternately if that doesn't exist, it would be great if there were some command you could give to delete the white space after tabbing. So for instance, it could be x sup>{2}$ where tabbing after the $ instructs Emmet to remove the white space which precedes the Emmet command.
Does any such solution exist in Emmet?
In Sublime Text, you can run Enter Abbreviation Mode command: it will capture anything you type as abbreviation, validate it and show interactive preview. Then simply Tab or Enter to expand it or Esc to reset.
See more at https://github.com/emmetio/sublime-text-plugin#disable-abbreviation-capturing
Related
I’m trying to improve a snippet for Gedit that helps me write shell scripts.
Currently, the snippet encloses the name of a variable into double quotes surrounding curly brackets preceded with a dollar sign. But to make the letters uppercase, I have to switch to the caps-lock mode or hold down a shift key when entering the words. Here is the code of the snippet:
"\${$1}"
I would like that the snippet makes the letters uppercase for me. To do that, I need to know how to make text uppercase and change the content of a placeholder.
I have carefully read the following articles:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Gedit/Plugins/Snippets
https://blogs.gnome.org/jessevdk/2009/12/06/about-snippets/
https://www.marxists.org/admin/volunteers/gedit-sed.htm
How do you create a date snippet in gedit?
But I still have no idea how to achieve what I want — to make the letters uppercase. I tried to use the output of shell programs, a Python script, the regular expressions — the initial text in the placeholder is not changed. The last attempt was the following (for clarity, I removed the surrounding double-quotes and the curly brackets with the dollar — working just on the letter case):
${1}$<[1]: return $1.upper()>
But instead of MY_VARIABLE I get my_variableMY_VARIABLE.
Perhaps, the solution is obvious, but I cannot get it.
I did it! The solution found!
Before all, I have to say that I don’t count the solution as correct or corresponding to the ideas of the Gedit editor. It’s a dirty hack, of course. But, strangely, there is no way to change the initial content of placeholders in the snippets — haven’t I just found a standard way to do that?
So. If they don’t allow us to change the text in placeholders, let’s ask the system to do that.
The first thought that stroke me was to print backspace characters. There are two ways to do that: a shell script and a python script. The first approach might look like: $1$(printf '\b') The second one should do the same: $1$<[1]: return '\b'> But both of them don’t work — Gedit prints surrogate squares instead of real backspace characters.
Thus, xdotool is our friend! So is metaprogramming! You will not believe — metaprogramming in a shell script inside a snippet — sed will be writing the scenario for xdotool. Also, I’ve added a feature that changes spaces to underscores for easier typing. Here is the final code of the snippet:
$1$(
eval \
xdotool key \
--delay 5 \
`echo "${1}" | sed "s/./ BackSpace/g;"`
echo "\"\${${1}}\"" \
| tr '[a-z ]' '[A-Z_]'
)$0
Here are some explanations.
Usually, I never use backticks in my scripts because of some troubles and incompatibilities. But now is not the case! It seems Gedit cannot interpret the $(...) constructions correctly when they are nested, so I use the backticks here.
A couple of words about using the xdotool command. The most critical part is the --delay option. By default, it’s 12 milliseconds. If I leave it as is, there will be an error when the length of the text in the placeholder is quite long. Not to mention the snippet processing becomes slow. But if I set the time interval too small, some of the emulated keystrokes sometimes will be swallowed somewhere. So, five milliseconds is the delay that turns out optimal for my system.
At last, as I use backspaces to erase the typed text, I cannot use template parts outside the placeholder. Thus, such transformations must be inside the script. The complex heap after the echo command is what the template parts are.
What the last tr command does is the motivator of all this activity.
It turns out, Gedit snippets may be a power tool. Good luck!
How does Learn some Erlang or IEx colorize the REPL shell? Is kjell a stable drop-in replacement?
The way this is done in LYSE is to use a javascript plugin called highlight.js, so LYSE isn't actually doing it, your browser is. There are plugins/modes for most mainstream(ish) languages available for highlight.js. If the web is what you are interested in, this is one way to do it (except for when a user can't use JS or has it turned off).
This isn't actually the shell being highlighted at all, nor is it useful anywhere outside of browsers. I've been messing around with a way to do this more generically, initially by inserting static formatting in HTML and XML documents (feed it a document, and it outputs one with Erlang syntax highlighted a certain way whenever this is detected/tagged). I don't yet have a decent project to publish for this (very low on my priority list atm), but I can point you in the direction of some solid inspiration: the source for wx:demo.
Pay particular attention to the function demo:code_area/1. There you will see how the tokenization routines are used to provide highlight hints for the source code text display area in the wx:demo application. This can provide a solid foundation to build your own source highlighting/display utility. (I think it wouldn't be impossible, considering every terminal in common use today responds correctly to ANSI color codes, to write a plugin to the shell that highlights terminal input directly -- not that there is a big clamor for this feature at the moment.)
EDIT (Prompted by a comment by Fred the Magic Wonder Dog)
On the subject of ANSI color codes, if this is what you are actually after, they are easy to implement as a prepend to any string value you are returning within a terminal. The terminal escapes them, so you won't see the characters, but will perform whatever action the code represents. There is no termination (its not like a markup tag that encloses the text) and typically no concept of "default color to go back to" (though there are a gajillion-jillion extensions to telnet and terminal modes that enable all sorts of nonsense like this).
An example of basic colorization is the telcon:greet/0 and telcon:sys_help/0 functions in the v0.1 code of ErlMUD (along with a slew of other places -- colorization in games is sort of a thing). What you see there is a pre-built list per color, but this could be represented any way that would get those values at the front of the string. (I just happened to remember the code value sequences, but didn't remember the characters that make them up; the next version of the code represents this somewhat differently.) Here is a link to a list of ANSI color codes and a discussion about colorizing the shell. Play around! Its nerdy fun, 1980's style!
Oh, I almost forgot... if you really want to go down the rabbit hole without silly little child toys like ncurses to help you, take a look at termcap.
I don't know if kjell is a stable drop-in replacement for Erl but it wouldn't be for IEx.
As far as how the colors are done; to the best of my knowledge it's done with ANSI Escape Sequences.
I have defined a new LaTeX environment for excursions in a book chapter I am writing. The environment is multipage and often includes inline images. Moreover, I am using the shaded environment to give the environment a background colour to make it stand out a bit.
However, the environment, as shown below, is split up by floating tables and images, which makes the flow of the environment visually more difficult to follow. For example, it is now difficult to see if that floating image or table is part (the missing background colour does not help). So, I like to extend my environment to disallow it to be interrupted by floating elements, but do not know how to get that done.
\newcounter{bioclipse}
\def\thebioclipse{\thechapter-\arabic{bioclipse}}
\newenvironment{bioclipse}[2][]{\begin{small}\begin{shaded}\refstepcounter{bioclipse} \par\medskip\noindent%
\textbf{Bioclipse Excursion~\thebioclipse #1: #2
\vspace{0.1cm} \hrule \vspace{0.1cm}}
\rmfamily}{\medskip \end{shaded}\end{small}}
Any solution to disallow interruption is fine, even if the background colour is done differently.
The algorithm for insertion is rather complex. Basically you want that any pending insertion must not be put into the page where the env bioclipse apply. As first fast solution you could flush all the insertion first, and then start the new chapter. If you want to put figures or whatever into the environment, and you want them to be "flushed" only after the last page where the env is at work... second fast solution is: put them after the environment directly!! So they won't "annoy" the page/s at all (of course, avoid using of footnotes).
The other solution (making it someway automatic) is a little bit tricky. Insertion places for "pending" materials are chosen while constructing the vertical list that is the page ("candidate"), in the output routine. This means you have to play with the output routine at worst; but maybe it is too much, unless you're planning your own TeX format, and maybe LaTeX gives easier choices...
Digging a bit in LaTeX codes, I see there's a conditional you can try to use, it is \#insert* i.e. \#insertfalse and \#inserttrue. If you're lucky they "drive" the possibility of putting insertions, so that at the beginning of your env you can say \#insertfalse and at the end \#inserttrue. Try, I am not saying it works.
As maybe you know to use # as letter catcode so that it can be part of a "command" name, you have to use \makeatletter and \makeatother when you finished (likely default class/style preamble does it for you).
You could also be iterested in having a look at placeins style (it could be already in your installation, otherwise, see here ) which apparently could solve (part of) your problem.
Is it possible to have a TeX command which will take the whole next word (or the next letters up to but not including the next punctuation symbol) as an argument and not only the next letter or {} group?
I’d like to have a \caps command on certain acronyms but don’t want to type curly brackets over and over.
First of all create your command, for example
\def\capsimpl#1{{\sc #1}}% Your main macro
The solution to catch a space or punctuation:
\catcode`\#=11
\def\addtopunct#1{\expandafter\let\csname punct#\meaning#1\endcsname\let}
\addtopunct{ }
\addtopunct{.} \addtopunct{,} \addtopunct{?}
\addtopunct{!} \addtopunct{;} \addtopunct{:}
\newtoks\capsarg
\def\caps{\capsarg{}\futurelet\punctlet\capsx}
\def\capsx{\expandafter\ifx\csname punct#\meaning\punctlet\endcsname\let
\expandafter\capsend
\else \expandafter\continuecaps\fi}
\def\capsend{\expandafter\capsimpl\expandafter{\the\capsarg}}
\def\continuecaps#1{\capsarg=\expandafter{\the\capsarg#1}\futurelet\punctlet\capsx}
\catcode`\#=12
#Debilski - I wrote something similar to your active * code for the acronyms in my thesis. I activated < and then \def<#1> to print the acronym, as well as the expansion if it's the first time it's encountered. I also went a bit off the deep end by allowing defining the expansions in-line and using the .aux files to send the expansions "back in time" if they're used before they're declared, or to report errors if an acronym is never declared.
Overall, it seemed like it would be a good idea at the time - I rarely needed < to be catcode 12 in my actual text (since all my macros were in a separate .sty file), and I made it behave in math mode, so I couldn't foresee any difficulties. But boy was it brittle... I don't know how many times I accidentally broke my build by changing something seemingly unrelated. So all that to say, be very careful activating characters that are even remotely commonly-used.
On the other hand, with XeTeX and higher unicode characters, it's probably a lot safer, and there are generally easy ways to type these extra characters, such as making a multi (or compose) key (I usually map either numlock or one of the windows keys to this), so that e.g. multi-!-! produces ¡). Or if you're running in emacs, you can use C-\ to switch into TeX input mode briefly to insert unicode by typing the TeX command for it (though this is a pain for actually typing TeX documents, since it intercepts your actual \'s, and please please don't try defining your own escape character!)
Regarding whitespace after commands: see package xspace, and TeX FAQ item Commands gobble following space.
Now why this is very difficult: as you noted yourself, things like that can only be done by changing catcodes, it seems. Catcodes are assigned to characters when TeX reads them, and TeX reads one line at a time, so you can not do anything with other spaces on the same line, IMHO. There might be a way around this, but I do not see it.
Dangerous code below!
This code will do what you want only at the end of the line, so if what you want is more "fluent" typing without brackets, but you are willing to hit 'return' after each acronym (and not run any auto-indent later), you can use this:
\def\caps{\begingroup\catcode`^^20 =11\mcaps}
\def\mcaps#1{\def\next##1 {\sc #1##1\catcode`^^20 =10\endgroup\ }\next}
One solution might be setting another character as active and using this one for escaping. This does not remove the need for a closing character but avoids typing the \caps macro, thus making it overall easier to type.
Therefore under very special circumstances, the following works.
\catcode`\*=\active
\def*#1*{\textsc{\MakeTextLowercase{#1}}}
Now follows an *Acronym*.
Unfortunately, this makes uses of \section*{} impossible without additional macro definitions.
In Xetex, it seems to be possible to exploit unicode characters for this, so one could define
\catcode`\•=\active
\def•#1•{\textsc{\MakeTextLowercase{#1}}}
Now follows an •Acronym•.
Which should reduce the effects on other commands but of course needs to have the character ‘•’ mapped to the keyboard somewhere to be of use.
I'm working on a large project involving multiple documents typeset in LaTeX. I want to be consistent in my use of symbols, so it might be a nice idea to define a command for every symbol that has a specific meaning throughout the project. Does anyone have any experience with this? Are there issues I should pay attention to?
A little more specific. Say that, throughout the document I would denote something called permability by a script P, would it be an idea to define
\providecommand{\permeability}{\mathscr{P}}
or would this be more like the case "defining a command for $n$"?
A few tips:
Using \providecommand will define that command only if it's not been previously defined. So if you're not getting the results you expected, you may be trying to define a command that's been defined elsewhere.
If you wrap the math in your commands with \ensuremath, it will do the right thing regardless of whether you're in math mode when you issue the command:
\providecommand{\permeability}{\ensuremath{\mathscr{P}}}
Now I can easily use \permeability in text or $\permeability$ in math mode.
Using your own commands allows you to easily change the typographical representation of something later. For instance:
\newcommand{\vect}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathbf{#1}}}
would print \vect{x} as a boldfaced x. If you later decide you prefer arrows above your vectors, you could change the command to:
\newcommand{\vect}[1]{\ensuremath{\vec{#1}}}
I have been doing this for anything that has a specific meaning and is longer than a single symbol, mostly to save typing:
\newcommand{\objId}{\mbox{$\mathit{objId}$}\xspace}
\newcommand{\insOp}[1]{#1\mbox{$^+$}\xspace}
\newcommand{\delOp}[1]{#1\mbox{$^-$}\xspace}
However then I noticed that I stopped making inconsistency errors (objId vs ObjId vs ObjID), so I agree that it is a nice idea.
However I am not sure if it is a good idea in case symbols in the output are, well, single Latin symbols, as in:
\newcommand{\numOfObjs}{$n$}
It is too easy to type a single symbol and forget about it even though a command was defined for it.
EDIT: using your example IMHO it'd be a good idea to define \permeability because it is more than a single P that you have to type in without the command. But it's a close call.