[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] A real-life problem...

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] A real-life problem...
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:26:00 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2005-06-07) writes:
>> --- tex.el   05 Jun 2005 19:07:23 +0200      5.524
>> +++ tex.el   07 Jun 2005 04:51:13 +0200      
>> @@ -2669,28 +2669,72 @@
>>    :group 'TeX-parse)
>>    (make-variable-buffer-local 'TeX-auto-x-regexp-list)
>> +(defun TeX-regexp-group-count (regexp)
>> +  "Return number of groups in a regexp.  This assumes the following
>> +heuristic:  Any occurrence of the pattern `\\\\([^?]' is an opening group,
>> +so if you want to have something like `\\\\\\\\(', write it as 
>> `\\\\\\\\[(]'."
> Hm, probably nobody will think about that when writing a regexp.
> Couldn't the function recognize such constructs itself and disregard
> them?

Well, I thought about doing this "right" in every case.  And then I
thought about "[\\(]" and decided that I had no real chance.

Maybe something that will work in more cases is reasonably easy to do
and not too inefficient.  I am not sure it will be worth the trouble,
but if somebody else is of a different opinion, I don't mind if he
comes up with something.

> Isn't #'(lambda ...) a pleonasm?  As far as I understand (info
> "(elisp)Anonymous Functions") a bare (lambda ...) should suffice
> because `lambda' already implies `function' and #' is a shorthand
> for `function'.

Ok.  The doc string for "lambda" only mentions it as self-quoting, but
not the "will be compiled" consequence, which is the difference
between `function' and `quote'.  But you are right here.

>> The question is whether I am going actually overboard here with
>> trying to keep the order of the lists more or less in-sequence like
>> it was previously the case.
>> Does anybody have enough of a clue to tell whether the order is
>> important here?  If not, one can leave off the sequencing stuff
>> using `count', maybe making this more efficient.
> I am not too much into this code right now but if I had to guess I'd
> say it is not important.

Well, if I don't do it, the existing order will also get juggled.
This is concerning index entries, and it might be that this affects
RefTeX.  Carsten?

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]