Marcin Borkowski <mb...@mbork.pl> writes:
> One question. What I currently do is a simple
>
> (TeX-re-search-forward-unescaped "\\\\[])]" nil t)
>
> This /mostly/ works. It doesn't work in cases like this:
>
> -!-\( |x|=x \text{when \(x\ge0\)}\)
>
> but has the advantage of being fast.
What does "does not work" mean here? I guess you mean that your
function just scans to the next occurrence of \) which is the one in the
\text here, right?
> So, do we prefer a faster version which is not entirely correct
> ("worse is better"), or is it better to have a correct (even if
> slower) version?
Obviously, that depends on how slow "slower" is. But in general, I'd
prefer a correct version.
> (Since I have now the infrastructure for moving tokenwise,
> /implementing/ the correct version is not a problem. Its speed might
> be.)
Then let's try it out. I see no reason why it can't be fast enough.
> I'd really like to settle the FSF CA thing ASAP, though I have one
> more question to the FSF clerk. I hope I'll be able to sort it out
> soon.
Great, we're awaiting your contributions! :-)
> (That does not mean that I'm no longer critical about FSF/RMS. I
> still am, though less than earlier. But this is another story, and
> I'm going to write a bit about my stance in a future blog post.)
I'm also genuinely interested in reading that.
Bye,
Tassilo
_______________________________________________
auctex-devel mailing list
auctex-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
