[AUCTeX-devel] Re: [AUCTeX] Re: Debugging LaTeX warnings

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2005-11-05) writes:

> Well, according to some recent thread on comp.text.tex or
> de.comp.text.tex (don't remember which), most additions should be
> considered the work of the devel, anyway.  Probably the patch would
> have been more appropriate on auctex-devel.

*laugh* YMMD.  Why don't we rename auctex-devel to auctex-devil?

> Redirecting there.
>
> I think the functionality is probably a step in the right direction
> with regard to what the user wants.  But we need to fold the error
> processing of preview-latex and AUCTeX at one point of time.

Is that `preview-parse-messages' and related stuff?  That function
scares me. (c;

Anyway, I don't think that the patch I sent will do much harm when it
comes to integrating AUCTeX and preview-latex error processing, so I
guess I'll commit it after it will have received a bit more testing.

After the frenzy in dctt the overhaul of the style system climbed up a
bit on my priority list.  So I'll probably look at that first.  But it
will take some time to get a grip on it.  I'm probably thinking to
complicated again.  Currently I am wondering if it made sense to
distinguish styles in a tree-like manner, starting from the file a
style is related to.  In a file there can then be different style
classes, e.g. commands, classes, packages, or input files, and related
to these classes there can be different (ordered) options.  Like this,
if you find "french" in the style system, you could walk the tree back
to its roots and describe the style as the first option of package
babel in file babel.sty.  (I haven't checked if this example is
correct with respect to reality.)  But I am a bit afraid that handling
such data structures will end in a nightmare.

> It would also be nice if errors from AUCTeX could be flagged right
> in the text in some manner, and preview-latex runs could make use of
> that: right now preview-latex ignores TeX errors altogether.  If it
> detected them, it could, for example, refrain from showing previews
> in the closed form.  Some errors result in one-pixel images (like
> when math groups get confused), and people wonder where their stuff
> went.

Flagged in which text?  In the output buffer?  Probably not, because
the errors are already there.  Then maybe in the editing buffer.  Are
you thinking of a text property or overlay?  Why would that be better
than looking directly at the output of LaTeX in the first place?

-- 
Ralf