When writing trees related to delta functors, forester drops the
formula in titles shown in `query all`, and the Ctrl-K pop up.
I didn't remember exactly but I think this is not the previous
behavior. What would be a nice way to make it show at least
something? A tree titled "-functor" is really unhelpful here.
Perhaps we can set up a small ad-hoc procedure to approximate the
formula, covering KaTeX built-ins such as greek letters and \hom,
\lim? This has surely been done before. More generally, is there a
way to tell forester how to render plain text from contents?
Hi Trebor,
On 14 Jun 2024, at 8:07, Trebor wrote:
> When writing trees related to delta functors, forester drops the> formula in titles shown in `query all`, and the Ctrl-K pop up.> I didn't remember exactly but I think this is not the previous> behavior. What would be a nice way to make it show at least> something? A tree titled "-functor" is really unhelpful here.
That's a good point, I have this problem too.
>> Perhaps we can set up a small ad-hoc procedure to approximate the> formula, covering KaTeX built-ins such as greek letters and \hom,> \lim? This has surely been done before. More generally, is there a> way to tell forester how to render plain text from contents?
The scope of such a function is a bit unclear... How bad would it be if
we *at least* just rendered the KaTeX code as text (but without
attempting to transform the code into plain text mathematics)?
Ultimately I would like to have a version of the command palette that
can have KaTeX nodes inside it!
Best,
Jon
> The scope of such a function is a bit unclear... How bad would it be if we *at least* just rendered the KaTeX code as text (but without attempting to transform the code into plain text mathematics)?
This would be OK if we're taking the *forester* code, not KaTeX code, because
otherwise the title will be overwhelmed with complicated macros. (If the macros
were not complicated, I wouldn't define a shorthand for it in the first place.)
But would this be a bit hacky since it doesn't respect beta-equality anymore?
> Ultimately I would like to have a version of the command palette that can have KaTeX nodes inside it!
This would be very helpful, but it is probably not realistic to expect that
everything using the title will support this. Wikipedia for example resorted
to not use any special symbols due to "technical limitations". A forester
directive like \alttext{...forester code...}{plain text} is perhaps the most
universal solution.
On 14 Jun 2024, at 12:13, Trebor wrote:
>> The scope of such a function is a bit unclear... How bad would it be >> if we *at least* just rendered the KaTeX code as text (but without >> attempting to transform the code into plain text mathematics)?>> This would be OK if we're taking the *forester* code, not KaTeX code, > because> otherwise the title will be overwhelmed with complicated macros. (If > the macros> were not complicated, I wouldn't define a shorthand for it in the > first place.)> But would this be a bit hacky since it doesn't respect beta-equality > anymore?
Yeah, I think there’s no hope of emitting the raw forester code here.
>>> Ultimately I would like to have a version of the command palette that >> can have KaTeX nodes inside it!>> This would be very helpful, but it is probably not realistic to expect > that> everything using the title will support this. Wikipedia for example > resorted> to not use any special symbols due to "technical limitations". A > forester> directive like \alttext{...forester code...}{plain text} is perhaps > the most> universal solution.
I guess I remain hesitant, but am open to considering this as part of a
bigger improvement to the math support.
Best,
Jon
On 14 Jun 2024, at 12:13, Trebor wrote:
>> The scope of such a function is a bit unclear... How bad would it be >> if we *at least* just rendered the KaTeX code as text (but without >> attempting to transform the code into plain text mathematics)?>> This would be OK if we're taking the *forester* code, not KaTeX code, > because> otherwise the title will be overwhelmed with complicated macros. (If > the macros> were not complicated, I wouldn't define a shorthand for it in the > first place.)> But would this be a bit hacky since it doesn't respect beta-equality > anymore?>>> Ultimately I would like to have a version of the command palette that >> can have KaTeX nodes inside it!>> This would be very helpful, but it is probably not realistic to expect > that> everything using the title will support this. Wikipedia for example > resorted> to not use any special symbols due to "technical limitations". A > forester> directive like \alttext{...forester code...}{plain text} is perhaps > the most> universal solution.
Oh, my apologies — I misread your last proposal. I really like the
\alttext idea and I think it will not be hard to implement. Shall we try
that?
Best,
Jon