A slightly unrelated comment: currently the dollar sign does not play well with electric-pair-mode. Only if you bind $ to self-insert-command will it insert a pair of dollar signs and place the point between them. This might be the right time to fix that...
F. On 6/4/13, Tassilo Horn <t...@gnu.org> wrote: > Mosè Giordano <giordano.m...@libero.it> writes: > >> 2013/6/3 Tassilo Horn <t...@gnu.org>: >>> I think it's a good change, but since it's incompatible, users should >>> get some warning message. That is, `TeX-insert-dollar' should check if >>> the value is a cons, and if not, issue a warning and treat t as ("$" >>> . "$"). >> Ok, that's simple to do, but since these variables have been >> introduced some months after release of last stable version, can't we >> assume that people that customized these variables follow AUCTeX >> development? > > Ah, you are right. I've thought `TeX-math-close-single-dollar' was old, > but in fact only `TeX-math-close-double-dollar' is old. > >>> BTW, I don't see why we need 2 variables. Shouldn't >>> `TeX-electric-dollar' with no active region make the behavior you get >>> with `TeX-math-close-single-dollar' and the same customization. >> Good question. I've supposed someone can want to use >> `TeX-electric-dollar' but not `TeX-math-close-single-dollar' or vice >> versa. I use both, but I don't know what other people prefer. > > Well, I think most users either like electricity or they don't. I'd > prefer just one variable `TeX-electric-math' or so that supersedes > `TeX-electric-dollar', `TeX-math-close-single-dollar', and > `TeX-math-close-double-dollar'. > > The value '("$" . "$") with no active region, inserting the opening $ > would insert the closing dollar and place point in between. With an > active region, it would place the opening and closing dollars around the > region, and keep the region active. Then, you could transform a + b = c > to $$a + b = c$$ by selecting the region and hitting $ twice. > > When configured to '("\\(" . "\\)") it would be cool if with the active > region above, typing $ once would transform it to \(a + b = c\) and > typing $ again would make it to \[a + b = c\]. > > Does that make sense? > > (As a bonus, I think it would be fancy if a third $ would remove the > math again, so that you can cycle though the states "no math" -> "inline > math" -> "displaymath".) > >>> And since the variable doesn't deal only with $ but is more flexible >>> (good!), it should probably be renamed (maybe >>> `TeX-electric-inline-math', and `TeX-insert-inline-math') and aliased >>> with `define-obsolete-variable-alias' and >>> `define-obsolete-function-alias'. I've just checked, and XEmacs 21.4 >>> supports those, too, except for the 3rd and 4th arguments. >> Ok, but about keeping compatibility making `TeX-electric-dollar' >> obsolete for see above. > > Yes, right. We'd only have to deal with `TeX-math-close-double-dollar'. > I'd just check if it is bound in `TeX-insert-dollar', and if it is, > issue a message that the variable is removed and users should use > `TeX-electric-math' instead. > > Bye, > Tassilo > > _______________________________________________ > auctex-devel mailing list > auctex-devel@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel > _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list auctex-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel