Re: Emacs as a translator's tool

[Emanuel Berg]

Marcin Borkowski wrote:

>> Right, but I think its a good idea to keep them
>> apart. And then have different modes...
>
> It depends. How about preapring a LaTeX file with two
> language versions typeset side-by-side?

Better to use the translation tool somewhere else,
when its done one can do whatever with the material
including typesetting. LaTeX mode and markup will
just complicate everything.

Do it all in one buffer in general: DNC

>> Still, one can do that as well... with a variable
>> instead of point to keep track of it the overlay.
>> Maybe editing screws it up. Its just better to
>> have different buffers for different purposes,
>> then people can also rearrange stuff visually more
>> easily, and many other advantages...
>
> But my solution, in which I only use the overlay
> itself (no point, no markers, no variables pointing
> to buffers) seems to cover all such cases, and in
> quite an elegant way.

There is only one variable and that holds the
overlay. Moving point I consider a good thing, only
perhaps one should keep two sets of functions, to
make it more clear what happens and when, and make it
more versatile.

As for your solution, I have only seen one version,
the first you posted here...

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal