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
