[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:11:57 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Mosè Giordano <address@hidden> writes:

> 2015-11-04 13:45 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>> Mosè Giordano <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 2015-11-04 11:13 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>>>> Mosè Giordano <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>> 2015-11-04 10:27 GMT+01:00 Uwe Siart <address@hidden>:
>>>>>> On 4 Nov 2015 at 10:07, Mosè Giordano wrote:
>>>>>>> any objection against releasing a new version of AUCTeX by the end of
>>>>>>> this week, for example on Friday?  AUCTeX 11.88.9 has been released to
>>>>>>> ELPA two weeks ago and no one lamented havoc so far.
>>>>>> No objection from me as a (frenetic) user :-) I saw lots of beneficial
>>>>>> enhancements in the changelog and I'll be very pleased about 11.89.
>>>>>> PS: No problems here with 11.88.9 (except the default of
>>>>>> LaTeX-fill-break-at-separators, which has been changed, I think).
>>>>> Yes, now the default is nil.
>>>> What was the rationale for that change?  preview-latex looks rather bad
>>>> when line breaks are put into math rather than outside.  And breaking
>>>> inline math across lines gratuitously does not help legibility either.
>>>> So I'd be interested in the rationale: the whole
>>>> LaTeX-fill-break-at-separators machinery was created because there was a
>>>> need for it in order to have documents maintain well under filling.  So
>>>> it seems weird to disable it by default, making it mostly accessible to
>>>> experts (namely avid manual readers and customizers) rather than people
>>>> who prefer to have things "just work" out of the box.
>>> There was a thread in [AUCTeX] mailling list, "11.88.9 and
>>> fill-paragraph oddness".
>> Seriously?  There is a bug report for new Emacs versions' fill
>> functionality, and the reaction is to just disable the functionality
>> rather than address the problem?  Without any discussion?
> The thread was open but no one explained why the previous value was
> better than nil, there wasn't much to discuss.  Frankly, reading the
> code it wasn't clear it is useful for preview-latex, now we know it.
> I usually don't have strong opinions on default values, as long as I
> can change in my init file a variable that's fine with me.

It's not just preview-latex.  It makes good sense to avoid line-wrapping
stuff like $\sum_{i=0}^2 i$ in the middle even when not using
preview-latex.  Using preview-latex leads to overlong lines when a line
break in the middle gets hidden.  Which makes it a good idea in the
context of preview-latex to break after the final $ again _iff_ there is
a line break in the middle.  So the "break after" rules are mostly
interesting in the context of preview-latex.  But the "break before"
rules which move a formula to the next line if it would otherwise be
broken across lines certainly make sense also outside of preview-latex.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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