Re: AUCTeX and "builtin latex mode" integration

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 1:43 AM
> From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> To: "Tassilo Horn" <tsdh@gnu.org>
> Cc: "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org>, auctex-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: AUCTeX and "builtin latex mode" integration
>
> Tassilo Horn [2022-09-20 08:38:27] wrote:
> > Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> >> What I'm really asking here is if there's a willingness to introduce
> >> the inevitable bit of breakage in exchange for a supposed longer term
> >> benefit, and/or if someone can think of a better way to move towards a
> >> better long-term arrangement than the status quo.
> > I wonder why/if it's important that the AUCTeX modes identify as the
> > builtin modes, i.e., what would be the issue with having (La)TeX-mode
> > major-modes which have no relationship to (la)tex-mode at all plus a
> > setup command users would call in their init file in order to modify
> > `auto-mode-alist' so that the AUCTeX modes are added?
>
> It might cause problems for people with `-*- latex -*-` in their files.
> But other than that, it's also an option, indeed.
>
> Personally, I like the idea that `auto-mode-alist` (and mode cookies)
> should describe the type of a file, rather than the specific mode to use
> for it, but that's just me (and Emacs doesn't make that convenient
> since it doesn't offer the needed indirection).

I am inclined to the idea, with a simpler mechanism to impose specific modes
if one wants to go beyond the built-in one.