# LaTeX tab completions

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/latex-tab-completions/1519>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Created:** [January 16, 2017, 3:22pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/latex-tab-completions/1519 "2017-01-16T15:22:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ScottPJones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/scottpjones/32/146_2.png) [@ScottPJones](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ScottPJones)\
**Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 3:22pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/latex-tab-completions/1519/1 "2017-01-16T15:22:13Z")

</div>

I have been working on a set of packages to handle different sets of entities for Unicode characters (or sequences).  
I almost have the first of these, `LaTeX_Entities` ready (the others are `Emoji_Entities`, `HTML_Entities`, and `Unicode_Entities`. (I used simpler forms of these in my StringUtils.jl package).

One issue that came up is that there are a few entities in the Julia latex\_symbols.jl file that have names that are not part of any standard, and I wondered if some of those should be deprecated and replaced, or simply have the standard names added. (Note: the code I wrote for LaTeX entity tables could be used also for Base, it produces a table that can be loaded very quickly, takes much less memory, and doesn’t require some of the patches the current tables have had, such as for \varepsilon).

The names that I wonder if should simply be replaced by the versions in the standards are the following:

```julia
    "pprime" => "″", # synonym of \dprime
    "ppprime" => "‴", # synonym of \trprime
    "pppprime" => "⁗", # synonym of \qprime
    "backpprime" => "‶", # synonym of \backdprime
    "backppprime" => "‷", # synonym of \backtrprime
    "llbracket" => "⟦", # synonym of \lBrack
    "rrbracket" => "⟧", # synonym of \rBrack

```

(I think maybe the `llbracket` and `rrbracket` could just stay as Julia-specific synonyms, such as the ones `cbrt` and `xor`,  
but the \*prime ones seem more confusing than the standard names to me)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![m-j-w](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/m-j-w/32/4541_2.png) [@m-j-w](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/m-j-w)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/latex-tab-completions/1519/2 "2017-01-17T14:56:29Z")

</div>

I think the prime variants also make sense since they are quite similar to the various integrals `\int`, `\iint`, `\iiint` etc. Perhaps you could simply add both, the current and the standard ones, to make it directly compatible with LaTeX.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ScottPJones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/scottpjones/32/146_2.png) [@ScottPJones](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ScottPJones)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/latex-tab-completions/1519/3 "2017-01-17T14:58:06Z")

</div>

OK, that’s easy enough to do!  
Since I’m not a mathematician, I need feedback on this, thanks!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ScottPJones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/scottpjones/32/146_2.png) [@ScottPJones](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ScottPJones)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/latex-tab-completions/1519/4 "2017-01-17T15:00:45Z")

</div>

What about the `llbracket` and `rrbracket` ones? Are those easier for people than the standard `lBrack` and `rBrack`?  
Would people want both for those as well? (I’m fine either way, just want to know what the desires of the people who might actually use this)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![m-j-w](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/m-j-w/32/4541_2.png) [@m-j-w](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/m-j-w)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 3:35pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/latex-tab-completions/1519/5 "2017-01-17T15:35:22Z")

</div>

Considering how often I have to google to figure out how certain LaTeX abbreviations are named, I believe sticking to a certain pattern would makes sense. So, my opinion is yes, `llbracket` would be easier to remember. Then again, where do you draw the line… after all, one can add user-defined abbreviations as well (at least today).

There’s another point of view: In Mathematica, the double brackets have a meaning, they are used as ‘pretty printing’ of the indexing brackets, which would otherwise be written as `[[i, j]]`. Since there is not such a need currently in Julia, their importance is probably significantly lower.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ScottPJones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/scottpjones/32/146_2.png) [@ScottPJones](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ScottPJones)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/latex-tab-completions/1519/6 "2017-01-17T16:35:19Z")

</div>

I’ve also added standard LaTeX completions that might be easier to remember for people, such as `mathtt{0}` as opposed to `mttzero`. (I added just the ones that had a single {} with [A-Za-z0-9] inside the curly braces, not things like  
`Elsevier{123f}`)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![m-j-w](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/m-j-w/32/4541_2.png) [@m-j-w](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/m-j-w)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/latex-tab-completions/1519/7 "2017-01-17T17:33:55Z")

</div>

Cool, and it’s still the same syntax in LaTeX and Julia, despite the brackets. Nice. I like it.