Re: [AUCTeX] Problem with latex2e style hook --- LaTeX/Texinfo collision‏

[Tassilo Horn]

Vincent Belaïche <address@hidden> writes:

Hi Vincent,

> BTW, in my previous email I proposed a defun for (not...), but please
> note that with this defun `not' must have one single *dialect*
> argument (`dialect' as opposed to `dialect expression').
>
> So (nor x y) is equivalent to (not (or x y)) only in the case when (or
> x y) is a one element list.

That sounds like strange logic to me.  Say we have the dialects :a, :b,
:c and :d.  Then if I do

  (TeX-add-style-hook "foo" (lambda () ...) (not (or :a :b)))

I want it to run for both dialects :c and :d.  Same for (nor :a :b).
The two dialect expressions should be equivalent in every case.

> Please note that in my initial contribution you told that `not' would
> be better named `nor', and this is why I did rename it.  However I
> think that it could have kept the original name `not' even if not
> unary.  After all, the SORTED-DIALECT-LIST element of the hook vector
> is a particular implementation of a `set' object. These
> SORTED-DIALECT-LIST are just non empty sets.

I don't see why that should be different.  With sets, `or' is basically
the union.  So (not (or :a :b)) would mean "not in the union of the
single-element sets :a and :b", i.e., "not in the set (:a :b)" which
would still be (:c :d).

> Maybe it would have been preferable to implement this `set' thing as a
> bitmap: it is quite unlikely that AUCTeX will ever have to handle more
> dialects than there are bits in an integer (currently 23).

I very much hope so.

> Bitwise logical operators are maybe better suited to make the
> job. That would be simpler, shorter, easier to maintain code, and if
> you wish I can update the patch towards this.

Well, if it's shorter, simpler and easier to maintain, please do so!

Bye,
Tassilo