bug#65648: 13.2; indentation of nested environments

[Uwe Brauer]

>>> "PN" == Paul Nelson <ultrono@gmail.com> writes:
Hi Paul

> Hi Uwe,
> Thanks for your response.  First I'll respond to the minor points:

>> You say indent-region
>> 
>> I am referring here to the LaTeX-filling-functions, such as
>> LaTeX-fill-environment,  LaTeX-fill-section etc

> There's no important difference here between indent-region and the
> LaTeX fill commands -- unless I'm mistakaen, they all ultimately call
> LaTeX-indent-line, one line at a time.  The same issue occurs for
> both.

>> Since I receive a *lot* of theses badly (in the sense above)
>> environments in the incorrect form
>> So I came up with a solution heavily rewritten and improved by Arash

> I'm likewise often enough in this situation, motivating my proposal.
> My workaround is "czm-tex-edit-fix-buffer", available at the very
> bottom of 
> https://github.com/ultronozm/czm-tex-edit.el/blob/main/czm-tex-edit.el,
> which makes each \begin and \end in the buffer appear on their own
> line.  I suspect it's similar enough to what you use.

I just had a look, very interesting, you also have a function 
czm-tex-edit-make-equation-numbered 

I also came up with something similar, again, heavily rewritten by Arash

(defun my-change-dollar-to-equation ()
  (interactive)
  (save-excursion
  (replace-regexp "\\$\\$\\(\\(.\\|\n\\)*?\\)\\$\\$"
                  "\\\\begin{equation}\\1\\\\end{equation}")))

(defun my-change-dollar-to-equation-label ()
  "Courtesy from Arash Esbati
[[https://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_umsgid=86fspsavpa.fsf@gnu.org][Email
 from Arash Esbati: Re: change $$ to equations with automatic labels]]:
This function not only replaces displayed plain TeX equations with a `$$' 
equations with
the `\begin{{equation}' environment, but it also inserts an
appropriate label via `reftex-label'"
  (interactive)
  (let ((p (point-marker))
        (s (make-marker))
        (e (make-marker)))
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (while (re-search-forward (concat "^" (regexp-quote "$$")) nil t)
      ;; Start doing something if we are in a math evn:
      (when (texmathp)
        (set-marker s (point))
        ;; Search for the closing $$ pair:
        (re-search-forward (concat "^" (regexp-quote "$$")))
        (set-marker e (point))
        (delete-backward-char 2)
        (insert "\\end{equation}")
        (delete-horizontal-space)
        (goto-char s)
        (delete-backward-char 2)
        (insert "\\begin{equation}")
        (delete-horizontal-space)
        ;; Indent the environment:
        (goto-char e)
        (indent-according-to-mode)
        (goto-char s)
        (indent-according-to-mode)
        ;; Check if there is already a \label:
        (unless (re-search-forward "\\\\label{" e t)
          (goto-char s)
          (forward-line)
          (indent-according-to-mode)
          (reftex-label)
          (LaTeX-newline)
          (indent-according-to-mode))))
    (goto-char p)
    (set-marker p nil)
    (set-marker s nil)
    (set-marker e nil)))


I think it might be a good idea somehow to try to combine these
functions. I also proposed/asked to add them to auctex, till now there
was not enough interest and it was considered a corner case.


> The point of this bug fix is not really for me -- I get around it
> through a combination of being diligent about inserting environments
> and the linting function that I linked above -- but for new users who
> I don't think should have to do that.

That of course is true.

> OK, on to the main point.  My claim is that if you care about your
> example, namely

> #+begin_src latex
> \begin{equation}*
>   \begin{aligned}**
>     &n u m=\left[\begin{array}{ll}***
>                    2 & 25
>     \end{array}\right] \\
>     &d e n=\left[\begin{array}{lll}
>                    1 & 4 & 25
>     \end{array}\right]
>   \end{aligned}
> \end{equation}
> #+end_src


> then you should care even more about the following simpler, more
> natural, and (in my experience) more common example:

> #+begin_src latex
> \begin{equation}
>   n u m=\left[\begin{array}{ll}
>                    2 & 25
>     \end{array}\right] \\
> \end{equation}.
> #+end_src


> Let's put three of those examples in a row and format them according
> to current AUCTeX and my proposal.

> Current AUCTeX:

> #+begin_src latex
> \begin{equation}
>   n u m=\left[\begin{array}{ll}
>                 2 & 25
>               \end{array}\right] \\
>           \end{equation}

>           \begin{equation}
>             n u m=\left[\begin{array}{ll}
>                           2 & 25
>                         \end{array}\right] \\
>                     \end{equation}

>                     \begin{equation}
>                       n u m=\left[\begin{array}{ll}
>                                     2 & 25
>                                   \end{array}\right] \\
>                               \end{equation}
> #+end_src


> My proposal:

> #+begin_src latex
> \begin{equation}
>   n u m=\left[\begin{array}{ll}
>                 2 & 25
>   \end{array}\right] \\
> \end{equation}

> \begin{equation}
>   n u m=\left[\begin{array}{ll}
>                 2 & 25
>   \end{array}\right] \\
> \end{equation}

> \begin{equation}
>   n u m=\left[\begin{array}{ll}
>                 2 & 25
>   \end{array}\right] \\
> \end{equation}
> #+end_src

Ok I see your point now

> The current AUCTeX indentation here is obviously broken; the primary
> purpose of my proposal is to fix that.  I should emphasize that such
> behavior arises in ways other than via indent-region or filling
> commands, since many actions (inserting newlines, closing out
> environments via C-c ], ...) ultimately invoke LaTeX-indent-line.

> The difference between my proposal and the "optimum" that we agree on, namely

> #+begin_src latex
> \begin{equation}
>   n u m=\left[\begin{array}{ll}
>                 2 & 25
>               \end{array}\right] \\
> \end{equation}
> #+end_src

> seems to me a secondary matter, or a fine-tuning.  The "user fix"
> (always putting \begin on a fresh line) for the deficiency with my
> proposal is the same as for the deficiency with current AUCTeX, but
> the impact of the former seems to me much less catastrophic than that
> of the latter.

>> What's about a new variable then.
>> 
>> (defvar LaTeX-fill-sloppy t
>> "When t, Paul's proposal, when nil, Uwe's proposal, that is the old 
>> behavior")
>> 
>> Or does this make the code more difficult to maintain?

> It seems possible to fine-tune the indentation code to give the
> "optimum", at the cost of making that code slightly less efficient due
> to additional checks for matching \begin's.  I think that if any "new
> variable" should be given, then its purpose should be to determine
> whether to give such a fine-tuning, and not whether to fix the noted
> "obviously broken" behavior.

I think the maintainers should decide that. I am in favor of such a
variable, however I don't know enough of the code to really judge it.

To summarise, you convinced me, sigh. 
Not sure what the others think.

In case it gets adapted, then I will see how I can and will deal
with the new behavior maybe using some of your functions, and if I don't
succeed, I will complain again, 😉😇

Uwe 

> Thanks, best,

> Paul


-- 
Warning: Content may be disturbing to some audiences
I strongly condemn Putin's war of aggression against the Ukraine.
I support to deliver weapons to Ukraine's military. 
I support the NATO membership of the Ukraine.
I support the EU membership of the Ukraine. 
https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/gmail-conversation-view/

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature