[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: [AUCTeX-commit] auctex tex.el
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: [AUCTeX-commit] auctex tex.el |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:49:00 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
> * David Kastrup (2006-02-07) writes:
>
>> Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> (TeX-command-list): Use `TeX-run-function' instead of
>>> `TeX-run-ispell-on-document' for "Spell" option. Remove
>>> `TeX-run-ispell-on-document' as option for the third element of an
>>> item.
>>> (TeX-ispell-document): Move here from tex-buf.el.
>>
>> Things like "TeX-run-ispell-on-document" should be kept as aliases for
>> the sake of older customizations.
>
> An alias doesn't make much sense because `TeX-run-function' does
> something completely different.
Oops.
> If you are concerned about people who customized `TeX-command-list'
> and therefore have a `TeX-run-ispell-on-document' entry, we'd have
> to keep the whole function definition. Hmmm, I guess users with
> customized `TeX-command-list' variables will probably prefer to miss
> functionality in contrast to getting an error, so I'll put the
> definition back in.
Sounds sensible.
>> Anyway, why use a string here as argument for TeX-run-function? Seems
>> ugly, when actually a list is used.
>
> Because it's pumped through `TeX-command-expand'. By using a string
> we don't have to check for the variable's type in `TeX-command'.
I am not really convinced that is a good reason... Engaging the Lisp
reader for normal operation seems awkward.
> And because that way we don't have to insert a choice in the
> defcustom for `TeX-command-list'.
Is it really worth that?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum