[OS X TeX] is terminal sufficient?
herbs at wideopenwest.com
Thu Jun 30 00:03:55 CEST 2005
On Jun 29, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Joseph C. Slater wrote:
> 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.
Ah, but one of the nice things about TeXShop 2.03 under Tigerrrrr is
that there is (approximate but pretty good) ``syncing'' between the
displayed .pdf and the source .tex without using pdfsync. That is
because TeXShop 2.03 uses the internal PDF framework of Tigerrrr
which allows .pdf searching.
In the end... to each his own!
(herbs at wideopenwest.com)
--------------------- 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