Inquiry for suggestions on function search and documentation (from a Emacs user's perspective)

What is the most effective method for searching for functions in TeXmacs? While configuring keybindings, I found myself having to navigate through the source code where default bindings are set in order to locate the commands I was looking for.

As an Emacs user, it would be helpful to have an interface similar to describe-function or apropos-command, or a command similar to describe-key, that would instantly provide information about the Lisp side of things without having to leave the editor.

I think you are hitting on a weak point of TeXmacs, that is low discoverability.

Please see if the posts Inserting footnotes via keyboard shortcuts and Paste from LaTeX via keyboard shortcuts help you—they may be what you are already doing.

Of the two methods I list in the “footnotes” post, I have been using lately ack.

May be this and several other issues, you may better know as I am a new user, may be needing to modernise the TeXmacs code base.

Dr. A. K. Singh

I agree with you that TeXmacs needs something different with respect to what happens now. I am not convinced that what is needed is a modernisation of the code base. My impression is that people that would like to contribute, but do not want to get involved in team efforts or do not want to have to talk to someone in order to contribute, cannot do it.

When looking for a scheme function, I find the symbol browser in the Developer menu (you can activate it from the Tools menu) particularly useful. It shows a huge list of known scheme functions. You can filter that list with a string and directly access their definition (except for glue functions to the C++ code).
In order to have the full list of existing function in the symbol browser, you will need to activate once the “(Re)Build autocompletion index” before opening the symbol browser (won’t be necessary in the next version). Also, note that, presently, these introspection tools work well only with guile, not s7.


My impression is a bit different. Freshers are more likely to go to new changes in any field. Old people, I mean who are working in the field, have either already committed to a certain field, so don’t have time to divulge, or they are old to extra energy for extra things.

Therefore, TeXmacs should also aim at the freshers’ interest. This may be done by doing necessary things which may match the new demands and aspirations of the users of the industry. If one goggles about document processors TeXmacs does not appear, for which also necessary steps are required.

Dr. A. K. Singh


If one goggles about document processors TeXmacs does not appear

This is a sweeping generalisation, I’m afraid. If you had googled for scientific word processors, you would have found the following links already on the first page:


has been listing the “mathematical editor program” TeXmacs as an interactive graphical user interface for Maxima for quite some time.


That is very nice. Do I understand correctly that for keybindings one needs to search the code? As far as I understand all of them are saved in a table, but I do not know whether one can read/list the contents of that table. Same for menu items.

Yes, kdb-map-table is defined in kbd-define.scm, but you can see there that it is local to that module. So, presently, it is not directly accessible outside of that module, and its content can only be probed through tm-defined (global) functions that are in that module. If you want to be able to list its content in a scheme session, you would have to tm-define your own functions in that module for doing that. Same thing for menus, converters, etc.

1 Like

@@ or with-module could useful for that:


Just think, a person seeking a good document editor will in what way think of words like scientific processors. Processors in general suggest computer processor kind of things…

Every body searches for what keywords come to his mind.

Anyways, my point is not keywords but I mean that necessary things should be done so that it’s more searchable.

With regards,

Dr. A. K. Singh

I agree on your general point that it is too difficult to get acquainted to TeXmacs. This said, @Tilda wrote scientific word processor, not scientific processor.

1 Like