Hi Tassilo, Le 23/03/15 à 09h12, Tassilo Horn <t...@gnu.org> a écrit :
> Yes, nested verbatim environments is certainly not the scenario working > best. Basically, any \begin{X} where X is some verbatim environment > will enable verbatim fontification, and the next \end{Y} will disable it > again. But X and Y don't need to be the same, like in > > \begin{latexcode} % enables verbativ fontification > \begin{lstlisting} > \end{lstlisting} % disables it again > \end{javacode} > > AUCTeX font-latex uses syntactic fontification for verbatim blocks. > That kind of font-lock is usually used for comments or strings, i.e., > all those things that usually don't nest. OK but, if `latexcode' is not declared as a verbatim environment, only `lstlisting' is considered as such in: ┌──── │ \begin{latexcode} │ \begin{lstlisting}+\only<2->{+[+\emph{options}+]+}+ │ +\emph{listing}+ │ \end{lstlisting} │ \end{latexcode} └──── and what is strange is that, because of the non expected `+' in: ┌──── │ \begin{lstlisting}+\only<2->{+[+\emph{options}+]+}+ └──── the beginning of this environment is missed (okay) /but/ that's the following `\end{lstlisting}' which is considered as the /beginning/ of this environment. Wouldn't it be possible for `\end{...}' to never be considered as the /beginning/ of `...' environment? Meanwhile, is it possible to stop a listing region highlight with some (magic) comments? Thanks! -- Denis _______________________________________________ auctex mailing list auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex