>>>>> Arash Esbati <ar...@gnu.org> writes:
> The corresponding macro in tab-like environments is called
> \tabularnewline. Try:
> \documentclass{article}
> \begin{document}
> \begin{tabular}{ccc}
> ab & cd & ef \\
> gh & ij & kl \tabularnewline
> mn & op & qr
> \end{tabular}
> \end{document}
Oh, I didn't know \tabularnewline. Thanks.
> I think we should treat \tabularnewline like \\ and \newline and
> \linebreak like \par. Does it make sense?
Well, I'm still not sure the reason why \par and \\ are treated
specially, so I can't provide reliable answer for \\ v.s. \newline and
\tabularnewline. (Maybe Ralf has answer.)
With respect to \par v.s. \linebreak, I guess that the reason why \par
is exceptional is that \par is supposed to end a paragraph and usually
comes at the end of line, without a following empty line. Emacs built-in
facility to recognize paragraphs (namely, `paragraph-start' and
`paragraph-separate') cannot deal with such construct, so
`LaTeX-fill-region-as-paragraph' pays special attention to it, I think.
On the other hands, \linebreak just tells LaTeX that "I ask (or allow,
depending on the value of its optional argument) to break line here" and
does not mean the end of the paragraph.
Thus I don't think it's reasonable to treat \linebreak like \par.
>> On the other hands, it may be make sense to include lines ending with
>> \\ in filling outside such environments.
> You mean check the current environment every time during filling?
That's the reason I inserted "may" ;-)
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
