Again not blaming you or the particular TeXmacs devs working on import, this situation is a fatality of how LaTeX works. There are also a bunch of macros that are shown as raw visible commands in TeXmacs and I don't know what to do with those (but that's certainly something I could learn to manage). To answer your other comment, this paper of mine has many problems when importing in TeXmacs: the title is not aligned correctly, the algorithms are messed up, the figures don't have the correct sizes, and one of the figures which is exported from Inkscape is not even imported at all. This would be of course significantly simplificated if import followed by export (and the reverse) was the identity function, which would technically allow TeXmacs to directly edit LaTeX documents without having to rewrite them entirely, but I don't believe that to be the case and again I don't see how it could be possible. In particular I rely heavily on git to manage document history and to view diffs from my co-authors, and having to manage a document that exists in two languages simultaneously would add significant complexity to a workflow that I'm already barely able to make my co-authors follow. To be clear the problem is not TeXmacs, but the fact that in a team most people work in LaTeX and having to constantly convert from one another would be impractical. I'm sorry you interpreted my comment in that way, I did not mean to say that TeXmacs had shortcomings in the way it imports LaTeX, in fact I do believe it does its best given the constraints it faces, but as you justly said the task is impossible in the general case given LaTeX's Turing completeness. Hey, thanks for sharing your perspective. But if you carefully reread it, then you will understand that it isn't. Therefore, my reply might sound aggressive. Now it is plausable that the author is not even aware of the implicit bias of the terms 'incompatible with LaTeX' and 'partial converter'.

I think that this is a misrepresentation. The way the comment is stated, it suggests that TeXmacs is not good enough. Secondly: who is to blame for this incompatibility? TeX/LaTeX was designed to have a Turing complete grammar, which makes it impossible to write 100% reliable converters. Now one has to be fair when making this kind of statements.įirst of all: how 'big' is this incompatibility? I think that it is not that big at all and roughly as big as when you use a new style package with LaTeX or when trying to recompile a 25 year old LaTeX file.

I understand from the original comment that the author likes to use TeXmacs, but that (s)he thinks that the proclaimed incompatibility with LaTeX is too big a drawback for more than occasional use. It is not my intention to sound aggressive, but just to get things straight.

Install package in texmacs