[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: How to redefine Parantheses?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: How to redefine Parantheses? |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:42:39 +0300 |
> From: Ralf Angeli <dev.null@caeruleus.net>
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:53:49 +0200
>
> I tried to clarify why changing the default syntax is better than
> leaving it. In addition I provided information on what to expect from
> changing the syntax by example of AUCTeX. Please don't just ignore
> that.
I heard your opinions loud and clear, and didn't ignore them. I just
don't agree, and see no way of convincing you; that's why I didn't
respond to that specific part. Please respect my dissenting views,
and please don't interpret disagreement as rudeness.
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Ralf Angeli, 2007/04/09
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/04/09
- Message not available
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Ralf Angeli, 2007/04/09
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/04/09
- Message not available
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Ralf Angeli, 2007/04/10
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/04/10
- Message not available
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Ralf Angeli, 2007/04/10
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/04/10
- Message not available
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Ralf Angeli, 2007/04/11
- Re: How to redefine Parantheses?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
Re: How to redefine Parantheses?, Peter Dyballa, 2007/04/08
Message not available