I have the following line in my .vimrc:
autocmd FileType tex map <C-L> :!pdflatex % &<CR>
Now, the binding works fine, however when vim switches over to produces the output of pdflatex, it breaks lines in random places, producing unreadable output and making it very difficult to debug errors. Is there any way to correct this?
If you wanted to accomplish this without anything showing in your vim session you could take a different approach. For example:
au FileType tex map <silent> <expr> <C-L> system("pdflatex ".expand("%"))
See :help <silent> and :help <expr>.
When I use :silent !ls the screen flashes and generally needs a redraw, so this is a workaround.
Related
As written in the title, I am trying to create a multipage pdf with gnuplots cairolatex terminal.
I am using gnuplot 5.4 in cygwin.
Single page works fine, i.e.
./gnuplot-script
pdflatex plot.tex
However when I plot multiple pages in the gnuplot-script, the output .tex file seems to contain errors ..
E.g. the gnuplot-script
set terminal cairolatex standalone
set output "plot.tex"
plot x
plot x**2
outputs a plot.tex that contains two \documentclass{minimal} and pdflatex then complains with
! LaTeX Error: Can be used only in preamble.
...
l.181 \documentclass
{minimal}
I can workaround this by putting each plot into a new file, but it seems a bit strange that simple multipage output is bugged in this terminal?
Am I missing some special command to start a new page in the cairolatex terminal or something? I don't see anything in the documentation for this ..
If you really need to create a TeX-based multipage pdf file directly from gnuplot, I suggest to use the tikz terminal rather than cairolatex.
set terminal tikz standalone
set output "plot.tex"
plot x
plot x**2
unset output
!pdflatex plot
I am using a single unified LaTeX doc to create problem sets and solutions:
\item What is one plus one?
\begin{soln}
The answer is "two".
\end{soln}
In LaTeX, I define this environment with (simplified):
\NewEnviron{soln}
{
\ifsolutions\expandafter
\BODY
\fi
}
That is, if \solutionsfalse has been defined in LaTeX, it prints:
1. What is one plus one?
and if \solutionstrue has been defined, it prints:
1. What is one plus one?
** The answer is two **
I'm trying to replicate this in pandoc to generate HTML or MD files from the latex input, but I've run against the wall. Pandoc doesn't honor any kind of /if /else /fi statement in LaTeX, I think. Pandoc doesn't honor the comment environment, which would also work with \excludecomment{soln}. So, I can't come up with a shim.tex file that would replicate the 'ignore stuff in the soln environment'.
The next way to go would, I guess, be to do something in luatex that pandoc can talk to, or to define the custom environment to pandoc with a filter? But the documentation for those systems is extremely heavyweight - there's no easy way in.
Can anyone suggest a solution to this?
Ideally, I want to run two different shell commands. Command A should omit all content in the soln environment. Command B, ideally, should turn all regular text blue, and show all content in the soln environment in black color.
(P.S. The xcolor package also seems unsupported in native pandoc, although there is a filter that doesn't work for me.)
Edit
Following comments by #tarleb and #mb21, I guess I have to try to work out how filters work. Again, the documentation here is terrible - it wants you to know everything before you can do anything.
I tried this:
return {
{
RawBlock = function(elem)
print(elem.text)
if starts_with('\\begin{soln}', elem.text) then
return pandoc.RawBlock(elem.format,"SOLN")
else
return elem
end
end,
}
}
and ran it with
pandoc --lua-filter ifdef.lua --mathjax -s hw01.tex -s -o hw01.html
But there is nothing on stdout from the print statement, and my document is unchanged, so the RawBlocks are apparently not processed by the lua filter unless the -f latex+raw_tex flag is passed. But passing those flags means that pandoc doesn't actually process the \include commands in the latex, so my filter wont' see the subdocuments.
Apparently, the answer is "No, pandoc cannot support new latex environment", because it would require modifying the parser. Although the -f latex+raw_tex can disable big parts of the parser, that just means the document is largely unparsed, which isn't what I want.
Please tell me if I'm wrong.
I am working on a .md file which includes latex. The file looks like this:
$$
1+1 = 2
\\
2+2 = 4
$$
The File:
When viewing it as markdown the file looks perfectly fine with the new line properly added.
Although when I use pandoc to write the file to a pdf the following happens:
PDF File (from pandoc)
As you can see the new line has been completely removed and makes the latex hard to read.
I am using the following pandoc command:
pandoc --wrap=preserve in.md -o out.pdf
The --wrap=preserve does not seem to be working as it ignores a new line. I have also tried to use \newline \linebreak instead of \\ and neither seem to be working.
How can I specify a line break so pandoc will make sure to keep the breaks rather than keeping everything inline?
Whatever file preview tool you are using: it is lying to you. Double-backslash is not the correct way to insert newlines into math.
Pandoc either parses the math and converts it into the target format, or just passes the code through, depending on the output format. For PDF output via LaTeX, the equation is just passed through. (You can check by running pandoc with --verbose, which, among other things, will print the generated raw LaTeX code.) So it is clear that the problem lies with the input.
There are multiple ways to add linebreaks into math in LaTeX. One of them is the align* environment:
\begin{align*}
1+1 = 2
\\
2+2 = 4
\end{align*}
This will give you the expected PDF output, but has the downside of not showing up in other output formats like HTML. I'm not aware of any method which would produce linebreaks in math equations across all possible pandoc output formats. You'll have to use multiple single-line equations if you need that.
The problem:
I have several Rmarkdown documents representing different sections of my thesis (e.g. chapter 1 results, chapter 2 results), and I would like to combine the knitted latex versions of these documents with other TeX files into a master TeX 'thesis' document. The problem is, that when knitting to PDF and keeping the TeX file to include in the master TeX document, Rstudio auto-generates a bunch of preamble that ends up clashing with my preamble in the master.TeX document.
A less than ideal, workaround:
I have been working around this issue by deleting this preamble by hand before including the knitted output into the master.tex file.
So far my current workflow is as follows:
set the output to pdf_document in the YAML header, with the keep_tex option set to true.
knitPDF using the Rstudio button
delete the preamble at the beginning of the knitted TeX files by hand.
include the files into my master.tex file using \include{}
The question:
I would like to convert Rmd to LaTeX, without having to delete the preamble manually before including the knitted TeX files into a master TeX file. How do I do this?
Sweave is not an option:
I'm sure I could achieve this by working with Sweave, however I like the flexibility of output formats that Rmarkdown offers: I can knit to html and view in my browser as I'm writing, to quickly view the progress of my work and ensure that there are no bugs, and I can also choose to knit to word to share with my supervisor who works only in word. Then, when I'm ready to compile everything into my master LaTeX document for printing, I can select knit to PDF in Rstudio to obtain the latex output.
I have since come up with a workaround:
create_latex <- function(f){
knitr::knit(f, 'tmp-outputfile.md');
newname <- paste0(tools::file_path_sans_ext(f), ".tex")
mess <- paste('pandoc -f markdown -t latex -p -o', shQuote(newname),"tmp-outputfile.md")
system(mess)}
The function above takes an Rmd file as its input, knits the file to md, and then converts it to TeX by calling pandoc from the command-line.
The secret ingredient lies in the pandoc call... When knitting using Rstudio, Rstudio must be calling the pandoc standalone -s flag when it compiles the pdf. This generates a 'standalone' document, i.e. one that contains latex preamble. This is obviously necessary when you want to view the PDF, but conflicts with my needs.
I am instead seeking to generate a latex 'fragment' from Rmd with knitr, that can be later incorporated into my master Latex file. So the solution was simply to create a pandoc command line call that omits the -s standalone flag. I achieved this by calling pandoc from R with system() inside the above function.
Hope this helps anyone out there having this problem, but would be great if I was able to change Rstudio's settings to avoid bothering with this hack. Suggestions and feedback welcome.
Here is a simpler solution using the LaTeX package docmute.
Your main Rmarkdown document, (e.g., main.Rmd) should load the docmute package and include your other files (e.g., part1.Rmd and part.Rmd), once knitted and located in the same directory, with \input or \includelike this:
---
title: "Main"
output: pdf_document
header-includes:
- \usepackage{docmute}
---
# Part 1
\input{part1.tex}
# Part 2
\input{part1.tex}
Then your other files just need to have a keep_tex argument in the YAML front matter. Like this:
---
title: "Part 1"
output:
pdf_document:
keep_tex: true
---
Something
and this:
---
title: "Part 2"
output:
pdf_document:
keep_tex: true
---
Something else
Then all you need to do is knit part*.Rmd's before main.Rmd and all the content will appear in main.tex and main.pdf. The docmute package strips the preamble from the input .tex files so you will need to make sure anything you need before \begin{docunent} in the input files is also in main.Rmd.
I am trying to have the ket symbol which is usually written in latex as \ket{\psi}. However, this doesn't work when written within the $$ ... $$. This also doesn't work when written using IPython.display.
$ latex
** \documentclass{article}\usepackage{amsmath}\begin{document}
... chatter chatter ...
* \show\ket
> \ket=undefined.
So your \ket macro is coming from some package or other which I don't know what it is. This doesn't explain why it doesn't work in $$ ... $$ -- you have to work at it to get things to not work in display math -- but it does explain why it doesn't work in IPython: whichever package this is isn't being loaded in IPython's canned TeX environment (or) IPython's emulation of TeX math input language does not include this macro.
Here's a reasonable definition in terms of primitive math symbols, which should work fine in display mode. I don't know if you can put this into IPython verbatim, but you should at least be able to write out the expansion longhand when needed (e.g. $$ \left| \psi \right\rangle $$)
\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left|{#1}\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left\langle{#1}\right|}
EDIT: define macros using LaTeX preferred interface, rather than primitive \def.
I was able to extend #zwol 's answer to create a \braket command as well for use in a Jupyter notebook:
$$\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left\langle{#1}\middle|{#2}\right\rangle}$$
$$\braket{\Psi^*}{\Psi}$$
$$\braket{\frac{\Psi^*}{2}}{\Psi}$$
Gives:
IPython uses MathJax to render LaTeX in the notebook. MathJax is great but only supports a subset of LaTeX hence there are some limitations. See MathJax homepage for details.
A new command like proposed by #Zack will work fine though. Be aware that such custom commands will likely lead to some issues when converting to LaTeX (nbconvert).