I'm not sure what the objective here is; just doing a REPL
looks like a very weak alternative to wxmaxima;
to the extent that Racket and Common Lisp coincide, one
might as well write in Lisp. But people like their own
variations on programming languages, I suppose.
I would like to comment on breqn. Unless it has been
considerably revised and improved from the last time I
tried it, it is unlikely to be
a satisfactory solution to the problem of breaking equations
into multiple lines in general.
TeX ordinarily doesn't encode enough information to
do as good a job as can be done by Maxima. Sometimes it
doesn't matter ...if the structure is simple enough, the
demo works.
I don't understand what your question is regarding page sizes.
Sorry.
On 3/11/12 4:38 AM, Jens Axel S?gaard wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The Maxima in Racket experiment now has a working REPL.
> I have attached a screenshot and the code so far.
> Maybe someone can use it as an example.
>
> The Maxima command tex(expr) will convert an expression into TeX.
> Jays McCarthy's slideshow-latex package is used to turn the TeX into
> a bitmap, that can be displayed in DrRacket.
>
> One problem though:
> When displaying long equations with TeX I use the LaTeX
> package breqn to break the lines automatically.
> However I can't get the package to produce wide lines.
>
> For example: Wrapping the output from tex( expand( (x+1)^20 ) );
> into a dmath* environment produces 8 narrow lines, but on my screen
> they could easily fit into 3 lines. I have tried to changing paper size
> to a3 and a2, but that didn't have any impact.
>
> Do anyone happen to know how to tell breqn that lines are wider?
>
> --
> Jens Axel S?gaard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima