[AUCTeX-devel] Re: [AUCTeX-diffs] Changes to auctex/font-latex.el, v

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> CVSROOT:      /cvsroot/auctex
> Module name:  auctex
> Changes by:   Ralf Angeli <angeli>    07/10/03 12:20:52

Thanks for addressing this.  As a sort of clarification on my previous
mails, I would like to point out how this is might be done somewhat
more naturally (possibly addressing your point of not wanting to bog
down the doc strings with additional material).

> +There are three alternatives for the class type:
> +
> +\"Command with arguments\" (symbol: 'command) comprises commands
> +with the syntax \"\\foo[bar]{baz}\".  The mandatory arguments in
> +curly braces will get the face you specified.

I'd use

A value of `command' indicates commands with arguments
(\"\\foo[bar]{baz}\").  The mandatory arguments in curly braces will
get the face you specified.

A value of `declaration' stands for declarations inside a TeX group
(\"{\\foo bar}\").  The content inside the braces, excluding the
command will get the face you specified.  In case the braces are
missing, the face will be applied to the command itself.

> +\"Command without arguments\" (symbol: 'noarg) comprises commands
> +with the syntax \"\\foo\".  The command itself will get the face
> +you specified.

Commands without arguments (\"\\foo\") are specified with a value of
`noarg'.  The command itself will in this case get the specified face.

In short: there is no necessity to have the exact same wording and
spelling of the customization options in the DOC string: the DOC
string should have a natural flow of words even when not looking at
the customization options, and fit the grammar and spelling (so quite
often, the customization option will be in singular, and the
description in plural).  Of course, one will basically use the same
catch phrase and also keep the order of descriptions and options
strictly the same.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum