[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#35571: bug#35696: preview-latex does not work under any Emacs themes

From: David Kastrup
Subject: bug#35571: bug#35696: preview-latex does not work under any Emacs themes and bug#35571: 12.1; Changing foreground breaks previews
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 16:34:47 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Ikumi Keita <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Thanks for your advice, the attached patch works well.  The foreground
>>> color of the generated image matches with the default face of emacs
>>> without `preview-pdf-color-string', at least for gs 9.27 on my machine.
> Ah, my bad, I was looking at the outcome of dvipng, not pdf2dsc.  After
> I changed my setup to use pdf2dsc, the foreground color is just black.
> Especially, on the theme with dark background, math formulae are hard to
> read.  So this patch does not make sense.  Sorry.
>> Ah, that removes the functionality completely.  Since this patch sets up
>> a per-page hook, it would be my guess that this was supposed to guard
>> against cases where some images set up or leave their own page-wide
>> color (possibly just using \usepackage{color} is enough to cause
>> trouble).  Maybe it's the best we can do for now.  No idea.
> Now I'm wondering where "the last change to these code lines" mentioned
> in your previous reply.  The command
> "git log --grep=preview-pdf-color-string"
> shows only two entries for me:
> commit c5fe24eb9d59ff06be73f13d1a8c0a21885bc08c
> Author: Ralf Angeli <address@hidden>
> Date:   Wed Jun 8 07:16:21 2005 +0000
> commit ed3cdfa35a8fd9a3df2954ef62f93b70459d872f
> Author: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Date:   Tue Apr 12 15:12:39 2005 +0000
> The former involves only texinfo document change, so only meaningful
> commit is the latter.  But the function `preview-pdf-color-string' was
> first introduced in the latter commit, and it already had exactly the
> same form as today at that time.  I suppose the function has never
> changed since then.

Ah, you are right.  Sorry for the confusion.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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