[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[AUCTeX-devel] Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] tex-5.502; TeX-command-list - renaming m
[AUCTeX-devel] Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] tex-5.502; TeX-command-list - renaming menu entries
Tue, 7 Jun 2005 13:02:43 +0100
Thanks for your friendly e-mail.
On 7 Jun 2005, at 12:14, David Kastrup wrote:
I've configured my TeX-command-list to show me a nicely structured
menu, and while doing so I've renamed menu entries. For example, I
have renamed "View" to "View PS",
Wow. So you use "View PS" to view PDF files. Talk about intuitive
The command "open %s.ps" suggested to me that the PS file is shown:
(list "View PS" "open %s.ps" 'TeX-run-command nil t)
Of course, I added
(list "View PDF" "open %s.pdf" 'TeX-run-command nil t)
According to the documentation and value of TeX-expand-list, %s is
replaced by the file name.
Viewing PDF or PS depending on TeX-PDF-mode would be ideal, of course.
Well, no surprise here. If you want to play games with the menu
names, you should probably do it at a different point of the code,
where the menus get created from TeX-command-list.
I'm not planning to mess with the code, because updates would be harder.
I'm using the customization variables as they are documented.
But the menu entries are supposed to give a clue about what to do with
C-c C-c too, so you should likely rather tamper with the help strings
than the menu entries.
Point well taken.
The reason for the given behavior is that you do a string-match over
the command list, and you try to match a hard-coded string such as
"View" with the menu entries. That has to fail when TeX-command-list
But I don't want people to have to type
C-c C-c Compile RET
instead of the previous C-c C-c L RET. The commands right now can be
given a single letter, and "Compile" conflicts with "Check".
I see, that is helpful.
This certainly does not count as a bug in AUCTeX, so I am redirecting
copies to auctex-devel instead.
OK. Very slowly. The TeX-command-list documentation tells me that I,
as a user, can set the commands to whatever.
AUCTeX, on the other hand, suggests defaults for some commands that
don't exist after such customization.
I accept your criticism about my choices for the command names, but
I'm sorry, if AUCTeX suggests defaults for non-existing commands, I'd
call that a bug.