Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Annoyance...

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2006-04-19) writes:
>
>> It is sort of annoying that
>>
>> %<trace>  some TeX code
>>
>> is recognized as a "tag" by font highlighting in docTeX mode, but will
>> get ripped into pieces by TAB or M-q.
>>
>> Would it be possible to get reasonable treatment for ^%<[^>\n]+> or
>> something like that as a comment prefix?
>
> Does that mean the tag should be prepended to following lines if a
> long line gets broken, i.e. should something like
>
> %<tag> some long long long long long long long long long long long long text
>
> become
>
> %<tag> some long long long long long long long long long long long
> %<tag> long text
>
> after typing `M-q' with point in the line?

Yes.

> Or must such a line not be broken at all?

There are tags that start with %<* or %</ and those are switches, so
replicating them on another line does not make sense.  But they are
usually on lines of their own, so it does not look like people would
actually ever notice whether those were dealt with specially or not.

Lines with different tags should not have their contents flow into
each other.  Again, this is just the optimum: the basic thing is that
the tags are not dissected and wrapped around, but just stay at the
front without indentation.  And if M-j and autofill reproduced the tag
on the next line.

> What about indentation?  Should <TAB> be a nop on such a line or
> only indent stuff behind the tag?

The latter.  The tags are basically still part of the comment leader:
they tell docstrip which lines should be included in extracted files.

They can also be stuff like
%<style|driver>
or
%<style & ~debug>

The actual code follows on the line after that.  Inside of the tags,
nothing should be done, I guess: no indentation, no wrapping.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum