[OS X TeX] is terminal sufficient?

Joseph C. Slater joseph.slater at wright.edu
Wed Jun 29 21:00:09 CEST 2005

On Jun 28, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Maarten Sneep wrote:

> On 28 Jun 2005, at 17:10, diana beatty wrote:
> <snip>
> In principle everything is done through the terminal - the tools  
> provide easy access. The one thing that became considerably easier  
> it the source-preview (and back) navigation: spot a mistake in the  
> preview, click on it, and see the mistake in the source, fix it, re- 
> run and jump back to the preview. emacs and xdvi have this, and  
> TeXShop and iTeXMac offer the same on Mac OS X, TeXniscope and an  
> external editor also offers the same feature.

The most important difference on the Mac side in "syncing"  is  
pdfsync which allows this to happen between pdf and source. This  
works with a large number of editors and viewers. However, I don't  
think it's been done with pico yet. If you like pico, you might try  
nedit instead (it's x-windows). Alternatively, plain emacs from the  
command line is more powerful then pico (it has a built in  
understanding of LaTeX). It's not an easy learning curve, but given  
you like the command line...

I'd still install TeXShop and iTeXMac to play with. I rotate amongst  
multiple tools depending on the size of the task and my mood. There's  
a long list of software on the mac-tex web site (URL below). I'd look  
at all the short descriptions. I'll be something sounds good.

Summary: Terminal is sufficient.

PS. wrt Clause, though, driving with a high performance clutch is fun!
--------------------- Info ---------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
           & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Post: <mailto:MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu>

More information about the macostex-archives mailing list