[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Quoting problems.

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Quoting problems.
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:04:40 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2006-07-25) writes:
>>>> Why is there no setting "nil"?
>>> Which semantics would such a setting have?
>> No quote fontification.
>>> `font-latex-quotes' currently tells font-latex which type of
>>> guillemets is used.  Consequently a setting of nil would mean to
>>> disable fontification of guillemets and leave fontification of other
>>> quotes activated.  However, this seems kind of useless.
>> Why?  If documents don't use guillemets and the fontification gets
>> garbled, why not have a way to turn it off?
> Quote fontification can potentially go wrong on other quotation mark
> types, too.
>> Why is the variable called font-latex-quotes if it really only
>> works on guillemets?
> I didn't choose the name.

That does not mean we need to stay with it if it is inaccurate.  Also
the doc string says something else.

>>> Uhh, I thought multi-char macros can only consist of address@hidden
>> They do.
>>> There is quite some code in AUCTeX relying on this assumption.
>> This is like \chapter*: the real macro is called \<, but if it is
>> called with a suffix of < following it, the \WithSuffix definition
>> gets used.
>> suffix.sty is a fun little style file...
> The following code seems to work quite fine even without suffix.sty:
> \documentclass{article}
> \def\<<{foo}
> \begin{document}
> \<<
> \end{document}
> That makes me a bit nervous.

Oh, but it doesn't work since it destroys the meaning of \<
altogether.  After this definition, _every_ \< has to be followed by
<.  The \WithSuffix definition retains the usual meaning of \<, in

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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