[Mac OS X TeX] Re: The role of TeXShop
Jerome.laurens at u-bourgogne.fr
Thu Jan 17 10:20:01 EST 2002
Joachim Kock wrote:
> Bruno wrote:
> > I do agree with the wish to be able to use arrow keys, for example, for
> > navigating through a TeXShop document. If that were to be implemented, I
> > would favour the way Textures works, by using only arrow keys and
> > modifier keys (like Shift-DownArrow, Cmd-DownArrow etc.), to the
> > suggested single key equivalents (n for next page, etc.): single-key
> > actions seem a bit un-Mac to me, TeXShop is not xdvi wrapped on a
> > Macintosh!
> Fear of being un-mac is dangerous --- in fact the whole philosophy of TeX
> is somewhat un-mac: instead of selecting things from a limited number of
> menus and moving them around with a mouse, we write some simple code to
> specify exactly what we want.
Not so simple, but the subject would lead to a long debate.
In TeXShop-beta i simply chose the same key combinations provided in
This is cmd arrow based, so it does not need any localization. Sometimes
it can require
both hands, so you cannot drink your coffee nor eat your pizza while
your keyboard will be grateful to you.
> Concerning single-stroke key equivalents on the mac, there is one which has
> been around for a decade, namely the space bar as 'page down' --- I think it
> works in all web browsers (and most likely comes from unix (more or less)).
> Is this un-mac? It is very practical anyway, and once we have one of these
> single-stroke shortcuts, why not take advantage of the idea and define some
no arrow, no numbers,
other keys should have an evident meaning
+ and - should fit for magnification change
but other choices should take into account localization.
> By the way, let me comment on another set of keyboard equivalents in
> TeXShop: those Cmd-shift-L and Cmd-shift-T. First of all, I find these key
> combinations too complicated for the most important command in the
> programme: Typeset! Second, there should be no need to have two different
> combinations for commands which are essentially the same (Typeset), since
> it is hard to imagine a document which could be compiled in both TeX and
> LaTeX. I think it would be better design to have only one command (Typeset)
> which then in accordance with the structure of the source file would call
> the appropriate programme. In other words, the choice between TeX and
> LaTeX is not up to the user, but should be determined completely by the
You are right in a mathematical sense.
But you are wrong in a human sense.
TeXShop was designed essentially for beginners and had to be simple.
Avoiding hidden actions make things more evident to beginners.
BTW the context you mention is very difficult to guess. The user
has always to tell the program what format to use, it can tell it once,
or each time.
See the TeXShop-beta i am working on.
(I think this principle has some fancy name in object oriented
> programming --- can somebody refresh my memory?). (Just as the trash can
> is bound to different actions depending on whether the icon dragged upon
> it is a file or a removable volume...) (If you will allow me to express
> my preference on this matter, Cmd-T would be a good choice (T for TeX or
> T for Typeset), then the Font Panel (which is a quite secondary function)
> would have to find another key-equivalent --- or is Cmd-T becoming mac
> standard for Open Font Panel?)
Cmd-T is the shortcut of the application template provided in project
I chose cmd+opt+T to typeset
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
"unsubscribe macosx-tex" (no quotes) in the body.
For additional HELP, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
"help" (no quotes) in the body.
This list is not moderated, and I am not responsible for
messages posted by third parties.
More information about the MacOSX-TeX