Hi all,
I'd like to apply the attached fix for this issue. If no objection, I'll
install it with some regression tests.
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
#StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine
>From a496210874133b219d8e881f9a7178d7c9e23e91 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ikumi Keita <ik...@ikumi.que.jp>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 01:24:56 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Support detached arguments
* tex.el (TeX-find-macro-boundaries): Skip white spaces between a
macro argument and comment starter.
Fix doc string.
Add FIXME comment.
(TeX-find-macro-end-helper): Skip white spaces at the beginning of
line even when the preceding line doesn't end with comment.
---
tex.el | 15 ++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tex.el b/tex.el
index e032d8c5..6d854c89 100644
--- a/tex.el
+++ b/tex.el
@@ -5573,10 +5573,18 @@ in the buffer."
(TeX-find-balanced-brace -1 depth limit))
(defun TeX-find-macro-boundaries (&optional lower-bound)
- "Return a list containing the start and end of a macro.
+ "Return a cons containing the start and end of a macro.
If LOWER-BOUND is given, do not search backward further than this
point in buffer. Arguments enclosed in brackets or braces are
considered part of the macro."
+ ;; FIXME: Pay attention to `texmathp-allow-detached-args' and
+ ;; `reftex-allow-detached-macro-args'.
+ ;; Should we handle cases like \"{o} and \\[3mm] (that is, a macro
+ ;; whose name is a symbol and takes some arguments) as well? Note
+ ;; that amsmath package arranges the macro \\ so that white spaces
+ ;; between \\ and [something] prevents the latter to be interpreted
+ ;; as an optional argument. mathtools package has similar
+ ;; arrangement for some environments including gathered.
(save-restriction
(when lower-bound
(narrow-to-region lower-bound (point-max)))
@@ -5603,6 +5611,7 @@ considered part of the macro."
(condition-case nil (backward-sexp)
(error (throw 'abort nil)))
(forward-comment -1)
+ (skip-chars-backward " \t")
(and (memq (char-before) '(?\] ?\}))
(not (TeX-escaped-p (1- (point)))))))
(skip-chars-backward "A-Za-z@*")
@@ -5632,7 +5641,7 @@ those will be considered part of it."
(while (not (eobp))
(cond
;; Skip over pairs of square brackets
- ((or (looking-at "[ \t]*\n?\\(\\[\\)") ; Be conservative: Consider
+ ((or (looking-at "[ \t]*\n?[ \t]*\\(\\[\\)") ; Be conservative: Consider
; only consecutive lines.
(and (looking-at (concat "[ \t]*" TeX-comment-start-regexp))
(save-excursion
@@ -5643,7 +5652,7 @@ those will be considered part of it."
(forward-sexp)
(scan-error (throw 'found (point)))))
;; Skip over pairs of curly braces
- ((or (looking-at "[ \t]*\n?{") ; Be conservative: Consider
+ ((or (looking-at "[ \t]*\n?[ \t]*{") ; Be conservative: Consider
; only consecutive lines.
(and (looking-at (concat "[ \t]*" TeX-comment-start-regexp))
(save-excursion
--
2.38.1
>>>>> Ikumi Keita <ik...@ikumi.que.jp> writes:
> Hi Enrico,
>>>>> Enrico Flor <enr...@eflor.net> writes:
>> Here are the positions where point lands after evaluating
>> (goto-char (TeX-find-macro-end-helper))
>> with point at the beginning of the macro:
>> \macro{first}
>> {second}█
>> \macro{first}█
>> {second}
>> \macro{first} % comment
>> {second}█
>> What happens is that whitespace in the second line is skipped only if
>> the previous line ended with some comment. Since "second" is parsed as
>> the second argument of the macro in all three cases, I think
>> TeX-find-macro-end-helper should return the position right after
>> `{second}` in all three cases. If this is correct, this patch should
>> implement the behavior (it just modifies two regexps in that function).
> Indeed. (The form to evaluate should actually be
> (goto-char (TeX-find-macro-end-helper (point)))
> , but that doesn't matter much.)
>> Please forgive the noise if this is in fact an intentional behavior.
> I suppose that the reported difference is just accidental one without
> any particular intention. So I think AUCTeX can accept your patch.
> Here are some related thoughts:
> (1) The former half of `TeX-find-macro-boundaries' has similar subtle
> inconsistency. When I evaluate
> (let (start-point)
> (save-excursion
> (catch 'abort
> (let ((parse-sexp-ignore-comments t))
> (when (condition-case nil (progn (up-list) t) (error nil))
> (while (progn
> (condition-case nil (backward-sexp)
> (error (throw 'abort nil)))
> (forward-comment -1)
> (and (memq (char-before) '(?\] ?\}))
> (not (TeX-escaped-p (1- (point)))))))
> (skip-chars-backward "A-Za-z@*")
> (when (and (eq (char-before) (aref TeX-esc 0))
> (not (TeX-escaped-p (1- (point)))))
> (setq start-point (1- (point))))))))
> (goto-char start-point))
> inside the "{second}" in the following examples, the third one leads to
> error caused by `(goto-char nil)'.
> \macro{first}
> {second}
> \macro{first}
> {second}
> \macro{first} % comment
> {second}
> \macro{first}% comment
> {second}
> Thus I think `TeX-find-macro-boundaries' should be fixed as well.
> (2) There are customize options slightly related to the current topic,
> namely `texmathp-allow-detached-args' and
> `reftex-allow-detached-macro-args'. They both default to nil, so maybe
> we should introduce a new customize option to do similar fine-control
> over the behavior of `TeX-find-macro-boundaries' and
> `TeX-find-macro-end-helper'.
> (3) There are two packages related to the current topic:
> The document of amsmath tells, with respect to \\[<dimension>] inside
> display math environment, that
> ,----
> | Do not type a space between the \\ and the following [; only for display
> | environments defined by amsmath the space is interpreted to mean that
> | the bracketed material is part of the document content.
> `----
> The document of mathtools says that it allows users to write
> \[
> \begin{gathered}
> [t] = 100 \\
> [v] = 200
> \end{gathered}
> \]
> where [t] isn't interpreted as an optional argument for gathered
> environment. (This is package default behavior; "allowspaces" package
> option can disable it.)
> Thus if we are to be very strict, AUCTeX shouldn't consider separated
> brackets as optional arguments for these cases. (I'm not sure whether
> it's worth discriminating such strictly.)
