Re: [AUCTeX] overlay prompting

[Vincent Belaïche]

Salut Jean-François,

Not tested idea : 

Can't you fool the parser by writing \^^64ocumentclass instead of 
\documentclass when you are inside the verbatim env.

I guess that the ^^64 is parsed by TeX input processor, so it is not sensitive 
to verbatim catcodification. Am I wrong ?

   Vincent.

----------------------------------------
> To: address@hidden
> From: address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:45:40 +0100
> Subject: Re: [AUCTeX] overlay prompting
>
> Hi Mosè,
>
> Le 25/01/2016 21:21, Mosè Giordano a écrit :
>> Hi Jean-François,
>>
>> 2016-01-25 10:08 GMT+01:00 jfbu <address@hidden>:
>>> My document has other AUCTeX-parsing related problems. For example
>>>
>>> \begin{verbatim}
>>> \usepackage{fontspec}
>>> \end{verbatim}
>>>
>>> similarly triggers AUCTeX to prompt me for xetex/luatex compilation.
>>> This made the workflow a bit painful, but I forgot about it last time
>>> as I was doing latex runs via a Makefile.
>>
>> (setq TeX-check-engine nil)
>>
>> makes the warning go away.
>
> ah yes, actually you already told me so in the fontspec thread,
> thanks for reminding me
>
>>
>>> Also, perhaps commands like \setmainfont also make AUCTeX's parser react,
>>> or is it only \documentclass and \usepackage ?
>>
>> \setmainfont isn't parsed.
>
> ok, then perhaps I will do the ¡ trick after all.
>
> Rather than \let¡\empty, I could also simply do \catcode`\¡ 9
> to tell TeX/LaTeX to ignore it rather than have it be active
> (which it is via \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}) with an empty
> expansion
>
> best regards,
>
> Jean-François
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> auctex mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex