[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.


> 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

reply via email to

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