[Tugindia] how to identify the page break without xdvi

[David Kastrup]

Sandip P Deshmukh <deshmukh at escortsmumbai.com> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:09:38PM +0530, S.C.Phatak wrote:
> > 
> > I suppose you have xwindows on your console. In that case, you do
> > vim in one window and do xdvi in second window ( in background
> > ). For updating dvi file, save the tex file in first window, run
> > latex in the second window and move the mouse on xdvi window. You
> > will see the updated dvi file.
> 
> i do just the same. but that means that i have to have x running all
> the time - what a drain on resources.
> 
> i would much prefer to edit tex in vim in console, do basic
> formatting like managing pagination, etc. *then* start x and use
> xdvi for finer formatting.

If you consider "managing pagination" "basic formatting", chances are
that you are using LaTeX wrong.  LaTeX goes to great pains to choose
page breaks appropriately itself.  It manages placing figures,
footnotes and other material so that pages will be laid out well.
Cross references are managed automatically and refer to the right
page numbers.  Pagination is _not_ supposed to be something that the
user should need to worry about.  As a consequence, changing paper
formats, switching to twocolumn format, converting to HTML and so on
are usually quite painless _if_ the user has entered the things as he
should.  Manual page breaks are a very bad idea.

If you really wanted to, you could use one of the few available dvi
to terminal output converters which obviously will manage to show the
page and line breaks, though probably not much else in recognizable
form.

There is also some sort of dvi previewer available for the Linux
frame buffer device, but I don't remember its name right now, and it
is quite less powerful than xdvi IIRC.

> > If you use xemacs instead of vim, you can do this within xemacs
> > itself. Actually, xemacs is a better editor and one can easily
> > install it on linux systems.
> 
> debatable :) i have read great praises of emacs and xemacs but
> somehow found vim to be quick and easy and more 'logical'. as i
> said, highly debatable. but may be a couple of more praises on emacs
> and may be, i will give it a try?

Emacs does not qualify as quick, easy and logical, in the same manner
the English language does not qualify as being quick, easy and
logical.  The expressive power more than makes up for the learning
curve quite soon.

While Emacs can also be run on the console, the help and menu system
will be more accessible in an X session, and juggling with
previewers, graphics creation programs and the like becomes easier.

The main tools for TeX development under Emacs are
AUCTeX<URL:http://www.nongnu.org/auctex> and
RefTeX<URL:http://zon.astro.uva.nl/~dominik/Tools/reftex/>.  If you find
working under X something you can bring yourself to (be sure to use
high contrast colors and a large font, X should not mean ruining your
eyes), <URL:http://preview-latex.sourceforge.net> will help with
arranging equations and other visual matter.  Although if your main
previewing problem is viewing page breaks, this might not matter much
to you.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>