From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Please review & comment
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:01:59 GMT

In article <9208261428.AA20587@cse.uta.edu>, hufnagel@cse.uta.edu (Stephen
Hufnagel) writes:

|>     We plan to construct a LaTex/Z development environment.  Attached
|>     is  a  brief  set  of  requirements.  Your comments, suggestions,
|>     and/or participation would be appreciated.  Also, If you know  of
|>     existing similar components or capabilities, please let us know.

|>     APPROACH: The LTD editor will be optimized  for  the  syntax  and
|>     semantics  of  LaTex and LaTex style files --i.e., ZED.STY and/or
|>     OZ.STY.  Its key function is to provide LaTex  sensitive  editing
|>     and  very  easy  linkage  to  a LaTex syntax error detector. 

1. Ltd is an abreviation for Limited in the UK.

2. Might be fine for folks who only do Z. Most other folks will want to have
*ALL* the features of their existing editor. Extending an extensible editor like
emacs or TPU is the way to go.

|
|>       3.   Simple  (half)  Screen LaTex-Sensitive Editor (Can EMACS  be
|>           adapted to this task?) 

Yes emacs *CAN* but LSE on VAX would be easier because it already has been
designed to be extensible. I would advise starting by getting a VAX and hacking
up something in LSE, that should take you no more than a month to produce a
first rate usable product, Then you can start to think about porting it to
emacs.

BTW this is not a bash at emacs, emacs just isn't set up quite as nicely in this
regard as LSE which has a custom language for the task rather than force you to
use LISP.

Once you have your working version you then implement it in emacs by extending
emacs to support the LSE extensions. This is a quite well defined task and
should not be onerous.

|>       4.  On-Line LaTex-sensitive help

Use that built into the editor.


|>       5.  CheckTex: LaTex basic  block  structure  and  syntax checker,

A PD one would be nice. If you want to go comercial with it I think Mike will
eat you for lunch, fuzz is a pretty neat piece of kit and I don't think that you
will make too much by undercutting him. Mind you Mike dosen't support VAX at the
mo which I would like but...

|>           linked to context-sensitive editor and half screen viewer. 

No! don't link the products, make them cooperate but don't force people to use
all of them or none, that is the mistake inmos made with TDS (Tedious).

|>       6.  PrettyTex: Raw LaTex  pretty  printer  (indentation  based on
|>           scoping)
|>       7.  DrafTex: simple LaTex ASCII formatter.  It does not implement
|>           complex LaTex features --i.e., multi-column, varying  fonts. 
|>           But,  it  will  ASCII  justify,  itemize,  enumerate,  number
|>           chapters  and section, etc.  (similar to the  draft  mode  of
|>           SCRIBE!)

These would be no real use for folks with workstations, do enough people with
VT100s use Z to justify the effort?


|>       8.   (half screen) LaTex draft (ASCII) previewer, with  following
|>           versions
|>             -  VT-100 terminal
|>             -  IBM-PC
|>             -  X-Windows
|>             -  MS-Windows
|>             -  Mac ???
|>             -  OS2 ??? (this may be done)

Look in the TeX newsgroup, they probably have one. Forget OS2, thats dead.
Windows NT instalations will outnumber it within a week of release.

There are plenty of nice xwindows viewers for dvi. XDVI is in the current DECUS
release and I presume most others.


|>       9.  once all detectable errors are removed, link to:
|>             -   Z  cross  reference  mapper  from  Summer  92  software
|>                engineering class. 
|>             -  Z type checker --i.e, FUZZ
|>             -  full blown LaTex formatter --i.e., EmTex.
|>             -  a full  LaTex  viewer,  if  an  appropriate  display  is
|>                available. 

Linkiing to products is the operationg system's job. If you do it badly then you
stop others from doing it properly. Integrated environments are great on toy
town machines which don't have windows, how many of them do you think people
will be using by the time you get your product working. More tools is always a
good thing but most professional programmers have already built up an integrated
environment of their own, you have to be prepared to let your tools be used
within someone else's system, not force them to replace it.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker