Hi Tassilo, 2014-02-20 8:40 GMT+01:00 Tassilo Horn <t...@gnu.org>: > BTW, the name suggests that I can enter many packages. Is that correct? > Or is that all due to the special case of > > \usepackage[options]{pkg1,pkg2,pkg3}
Yes, it's that special case. I don't believe there are many packages sharing the same options, but it's possible in principle, I verified it with handcrafted packages. > If so, I'd rather prefer to read just one package with it's options, so > that I'd end up with > > \usepackage[options]{pkg1} > \usepackage[options]{pkg2} > \usepackage[options]{pkg3} > > and name the function accordingly, i.e., "package" (singular), when used > repeatedly. > Or it could allow entering multiple packages as it is now, but each > package with its own options. And then it would return an alist > structurally equal to `LaTeX-provided-package-options'. I'm not sure I understood what you mean. In the patch, `LaTeX-arg-usepackage-get-packages-options' (or its new name) prompts for a list of packages (one or more) and their options, so `\usepackage' is inserted as \usepackage[options]{pkg1,pkg2,pkg3} You are suggesting to prompt for packages, and if one supplies more than one package s/he will be asked for options for each package, separately, so they'll be inserted as you showed above, is it correct? In this case, I think that if one wants to load different packages with different options s/he should call `LaTeX-arg-usepackage' (ie, `C-c RET usepackage RET') many times, or use the new `LaTeX-insert-usepackages' which makes insertion of many `\usepackage's easy. That's because I often load many packages with a single `\usepackage' if no option is needed and I think it's a quite common practice, so I like that packages are read with `TeX-completing-read-multiple'. Bye, Mosè _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list auctex-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel