To use new macros (spec), you must either rebuild wasm with new artifact:

or passing the spec data as the argument here:

I guess I'll wait for the custom macro feature to be developed. Changing the file isn't really a good solution.

Changing the file isn't really a good solution.

could you please give more input on this?

Changing the file isn't really a good solution.

could you please give more input on this?

I would define \Pr as \mathscr{Pr} in set theory to denote a proper class, and define \Pr as \operatorname{Pr} in probability theory to represent a function. However, modifying the specification file would affect all documents, so I don't think this solution is a good one.

You might seek some personally used shortcut instead of trying to contribute some new public macros. Some meta macros may help define shortcut macros:

\newcommand{\f}[2]{#1f(#2)}
  \f\relax{x} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty
    \f\hat\xi\,e^{2 \pi i \xi x}
    \,d\xi

I don't remember clearly, but \newcommand and \newenvironment are definitely supported. It seems more constructive if we support more list of commonly used such macros.

You might seek some personally used shortcut instead of trying to contribute some new public macros. Some meta macros may help define shortcut macros:

\newcommand{\f}[2]{#1f(#2)}

  \f\relax{x} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty

    \f\hat\xi\,e^{2 \pi i \xi x}

    \,d\xi

I don't remember clearly, but \newcommand and \newenvironment are definitely supported. It seems more constructive if we support more list of commonly used such macros.

They are not global in the whole document, so I have to write them again and again. (My documents are converted from Markdown instead of raw LaTeX. There are many inline and display formulae)