auctex-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: [AUCTeX-devel] New error parsing

 From: Tassilo Horn Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] New error parsing Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:31:28 +0100 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.91 (gnu/linux)

Mosè Giordano <address@hidden> writes:

Hi Mosè,

> I noticed that the regexp in TeX-parse-error' doesn't match vertical
> bad boxes messages, that usually are like
>
>   Underfull \vbox (badness 1048) has occurred while \output is active [7]
>
> where [7] is the page where the bad box occurred, if I got it right.
> Ok, this message is pretty useless as it is because it doesn't provide
> the offending file and line, but nevertheless I think we should catch
> it.

And where would we jump to if there's no information on the location?

> In addition, in a document of mine I have some bad horizontal boxes
> with messages like
>
>   Overfull \hbox (0.93071pt too wide) detected at line 29
>
> but the regexp expects it to end with "at lines 12--34".

I've checked some log files of mine, and I didn't find a singular
version ("at line X").  But if you have them, the surely are possible.
One strange thing I found in my logs is that the first line may be
larger than the second, i.e.,

Overfull \hbox (1.95412pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 8--1

But those seemt to appear only in pygtex files, i.e., code listings
texified by pygments using the minted LaTeX style.

> How about replacing the regexp for horizontal bad boxes with
>
> "^\$$\\(?:Overfull\\|Underfull\\|Tight\\|Loose\$$\
>  \\\\.*?lines? [0-9]+\$$?:--[0-9]+\$$\\)"
>
> ?  I'm not sure, though, the phrase "detected at line(s)" always
> appears in such warnings.  As an alternative:
>
> "^\$$\\(?:Overfull\\|Underfull\\|Tight\\|Loose\$$\
>  \\\\.*?[0-9]+\$$?:--[0-9]+\$$?$\\)" > > with the trailing "$".  What do you think?

I'd start with the stricter version for now, i.e., the first version
with additional trailing \$.

Bye,
Tassilo

`

reply via email to