[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: Ralf Angeli
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: [AUCTeX-commit] auctex tex.el
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:40:50 +0100

* David Kastrup (2006-02-07) writes:

>>> 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.

Using a string looked less perverted to me than using a list.  Problem
is that we are introducing a dependency between items in
`TeX-command-list'.  All the "old" functions which can be specified at
the third position of a command list item expect a string.  Allowing a
list instead of a string at the second position of a command list item
without looking at what function is used at the third position looks
problematic to me.

>> And because that way we don't have to insert a choice in the
>> defcustom for `TeX-command-list'.
> Is it really worth that?

Apart from the concerns mentioned above, `TeX-command-list' is already
_very_ crowded.  I'd like to avoid more confusing options if possible.
I already thought about changing it to a defvar and advising users to
generally use `add-to-list' for augmenting the variable.

I know my approach looks peculiar but I still think it's less
problematic than the alternative.


reply via email to

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