cgeiger@ut-emx.UUCP (charles s. geiger, esq.) (01/22/88)
I personally think the idea behind Word's equation processing is
pretty good. I don't think WYSIWYG equation processing works too
well right now (except for maybe Interleaf, which costs a fortune);
The problem is that their implementation of the idea which sucks.
Command-Shift-backslashes or whatever they use is so awkward!
It seems to me that it would have been so easy (why didn't they
ask me about this earlier? :-) ) for them to do the following:
Have a text style (in the sense that outline, strikethrough, or hidden
are text styles) just for equations. If you want to type an equation,
go to that text style (of course there will be key equivalent for it,
so that one can move back and forth between styles quickly) and then
have a TeX or eqn (in unix) syntax for equations. For example: " sum
from n=1 to x " would get you a summation sign two points larger than
normal text with an "n=1" below it and an "x" above it. (For those of
you who have never used TeX or eqn on unix, it is a real snap to learn,
and it automatically italicizes all variables (except greek letters),
so I would prefer something similar to it.) Then, when you're done
with the equation, go back to a normal text style. Like Word's system,
all the English would be visible in the "show paragraphs" mode; the
resultant equations could be seen with the "show paragraphs" off.
This would be so much more straightforward than Word's present way of
doing equations. Granted, it's not WYSIWYG, but it is easy to master,
sets equations up just as they're set up in journals, can be used both
for in-line equations and displayed equations, and (it seems to me--I'm
not a programmer) could be easily written into the program.
If the Microsoft people had any brains(!), they would realize that
just about everyone dislikes their equation processor (on this
newsgroup we've heard people say that it's the best around so far, but
no one has yet ventured to say that they loved it!), and they'd change
it, preferably to a system similar to the one I described above.
cheers, from
charles s. geiger
ARPA: cgeiger@emx.cc.utexas.edu cgeiger@ut-emx.ARPA
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-emx!cgeiger allegra!ut-emx!cgeiger
gatech!ut-emx!cgeiger seismo!ut-sally!ut-emx!cgeiger
harvard!ut-sally!ut-emx!cgeigerbill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (01/22/88)
In article <590@ut-emx.UUCP> cgeiger@ut-emx.UUCP (charles s. geiger, esq.) writes:
~I personally think the idea behind Word's equation processing is
~pretty good. I don't think WYSIWYG equation processing works too
~well right now (except for maybe Interleaf, which costs a fortune);
~The problem is that their implementation of the idea which sucks.
~Command-Shift-backslashes or whatever they use is so awkward!
[Detailed proposal for style supporting TeX or eqn omitted]
~
~This would be so much more straightforward than Word's present way of
~doing equations. Granted, it's not WYSIWYG, but it is easy to master,
~sets equations up just as they're set up in journals, can be used both
~for in-line equations and displayed equations, and (it seems to me--I'm
~not a programmer) could be easily written into the program.
~
Bingo! This is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. If anybody--
Ann Arbor, Microsoft, ..., implemented such a thing in an otherwise
well-thought-out WP, I'd buy it in a flash. The real point is, will
someone do it???
Bill Jefferys
--
Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53