Re: Test for fontification

[Arash Esbati]

Hi Keita,

Ikumi Keita <ikumi@ikumi.que.jp> writes:

>>>>>> Arash Esbati <arash@gnu.org> writes:
>> What do others think, do we need such a general test?
>
> It would be good to have tests considering that syntax propertization
> affects syntax-aware functions.

Thanks for your response.

>> And if yes, which cases should be included?
>
> How about adding these?
> - verbatim environment
> - equation environment
> - \(\), \[\] pairs
> - \emph{...}
> - font specification such as \textbf{...} \mathrm{...} {\bfseries ...} 
> {\ttfamily ...}
>
>> +      (LaTeX-mode)
>> +      (insert "\
>> +\\documentclass{article}
>> +\\begin{document}
>> +Inline verbatim test: \\verb|x|
>> +Inline math test: $x$
>> +Marginpar test: \\marginpar{x}
>> +\\end{document}
>> +
>> +%%% Local Variables:
>> +%%% mode: latex
>> +%%% TeX-master: t
>> +%%% End:\n")
>
> I think that `(LaTeX-mode)' should come after insertion of buffer
> contents because otherwise Local Variables section isn't analysed and
> would be confusing when debugging after other local variables are added.

OK, I moved that form after insert'ing the code.

>> +      ;; Test for inline verb:
>> +      (search-forward-regexp "\\\\verb|")
>
> It would be enough to use `search-forward' since we know the literal
> contents.

Yes, true.  I also has something like this in my first attempt

      (search-forward-regexp "\\\\document\\(?1:c\\)lass\\[")

and hence stayed with regexp.

>> +      (should (memq 'font-lock-constant-face
>> +                    (get-text-property (match-end 0) 'face)))
>
> Maybe `font-latex-faces-present-p' makes the code a bit simpler.

Ah, many thanks for this one.  I was literally about to re-invent the
wheel!

I pushed a change to our repo.  Please feel free to have a look and tell
me if think more stuff is missing.  I think the idea can be expanded
also for LaTeX packages and their corresponding AUCTeX styles.

Best, Arash