[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [AUCTeX] LaTeX-fill-break-at-separators (11.88.9)

From: Marcin Borkowski
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX] LaTeX-fill-break-at-separators (11.88.9)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:48:21 +0100
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.13; emacs

On 2015-11-30, at 14:32, Mosè Giordano <address@hidden> wrote:

> 2015-11-30 12:55 GMT+01:00 jfbu <address@hidden>:
>> I had to grab 354 lines before the offending location to find an isolated
>> $ which confuses AUCTeX.
>> Although all the intervening macro definitions never define a paragraph,
>> there were a few paragraphs inside the intervening comments
>> Hence it seems that texmathp does not identify such paragraphs ?
> I've never looked at how texmathp counts the paragraphs, but I
> wouldn't be really surprised if it failed inside comments.  I mean,
> there is a lot of work (made by Ralf, if I remember well) to make
> AUCTeX correctly handle dtx comments like if they were normal text,
> and texmathp doesn't rely on the rest of AUCTeX for his parsing
> purposes (indeed it doesn't require AUCTeX at all to work), so it's
> possible that it wasn't optimized to work also in dtx files.


I have to finally analyse your patch to the bug we talked about (sorry
for my terrible delay!), but let me chime in again here, since I've
studied large parts of texmathp recently.

The only place `texmathp-search-n-paragraphs' is used is this (and
apparently it's also buggy!!!):

(re-search-backward "[\n\t][ \t]*[\n\r]" nil 1 texmathp-search-n-paragraphs)

I'm pretty sure it should say \r instead of \t (the first occurrence).
(And it still does not solve the dtx problem, I guess.)

> Bye,
> Mosè


Marcin Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

reply via email to

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