On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 13:28, Tassilo Horn <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Tassilo,
Gustavo Barros <[email protected]> writes:
Hi Gustavo,
I'm sorry to report that I've missed a problem in my testing.
Hehe, yesterday evening I've release 13.0.7 on ELPA, code-name
"Gustavo did the testing". ;-)
But no worries!
Well, I am sorry. But, to be fair, I admitted to light testing, and
I
was looking at indentation behavior. True,
`LaTeX-syntactic-comments'
should have put me on better tracks there, but I'm not that familiar
with this particular machinery, so testing also filling did not come
naturally. And I also did not keep the fix after testing, so that I
did not notice "something was off", which only happened after I got
it
from the release.
Hey, I hope you did not take any offense in my words. I just wanted
to
nag you a bit. Obviously, it's my job do test my changes properly.
Oh! none taken. Quite the contrary. I am a little embarrassed to have
actually missed the issue. Though it happens to everyone, every once in
a while. Anyway, your "nag" was received in a warmhearted welcoming
spirit at this end. But I appreciate your concern. As we know, email
conversations between people who never met in person can be touchy
sometimes.
Yesterday, after I wrote, I still did some digging. Considering
Emacs' and AUCTeX's codebases, `LaTeX-back-to-indentation' only
occurs
in `latex.el'. Within it, there are four "bare" (no args) calls to
the function, two of them in `LaTeX-indent-line' which, as far as I
can tell, is as expected. The other two are in filling related
functions, one in `LaTeX-fill-region-as-para-do' the other in
`LaTeX-fill-move-to-break-point'. Perhaps those should receive an
explicit argument, so as to work as expected during filling,
regardless of what is happening on the side of indentation proper, so
as to make filling more resilient and independent from indent
behavior. WDYT? As far as I get it, calls in the form
`(LaTeX-back-to-indentation (if LaTeX-syntactic-comments 'inner
'outer))' should reproduce exactly the previous state of things for
those two functions.
Hm, sounds reasonable.
Anyway, I did some testing again. Again lightly, but I've tested now
indent, it's interaction with `electric-indent', and filling. I
considered the following cases: 1) the new fix for
`LaTeX-back-to-indentation' by itself; 2) the new fix with the
suggested change in `LaTeX-fill-region-as-para-do' and
`LaTeX-fill-move-to-break-point'; 3) the new fix with the suggested
change in `LaTeX-fill-region-as-para-do' and
`LaTeX-fill-move-to-break-point'. I only considered the case where
`LaTeX-syntactic-comments' is t.
I did find one filling related glitch, inside environments.
Examples:
#+begin_src latex
\begin{itemize}
\item test
% a comment. and new sentence.
% a new line.
\end{itemize}
\begin{quote}
% a comment. and new sentence.
% a new line.
\end{quote}
% a comment. and new sentence.
% a new line.
#+end_src
Filling those comments within itemize and quote will not join those
lines, whereas outside the environments it does.
Hm, indeed. But that doesn't actually seem to come from the commend
being inside an environment but from the comment being indented.
Despite that, shouldn't the contiguous lines be filled?
However, this was already the case before the fix and the release.
So
I consider it to be a separate, though related, issue.
Other than that, I could spot no other problems within the described
bounds of testing, and things work as expected for all three cases.
Summing up. The new fix looks good to me regardless of anything
else.
Great, then I'll cut a new ELPA release with just that so that there's
a
fixed version ASAP.
Sounds good to me.
Still, I do think it is a good idea to protect the calls
`LaTeX-back-to-indentation' in `LaTeX-fill-region-as-para-do' and
`LaTeX-fill-move-to-break-point' by making the argument explicit.
I think I agree but have no time for doing that right now. I'll have
a
look whenever I find some spare time next week.
Also sounds good to me.
If you choose to do so, both of the fixes to
`LaTeX-back-to-indentation' work. However, considering the episode,
I'd still recommend the second, as it seems to go on the safer side
of
things.
Agreed.
Great.
Well, if all goes well, I hope you can release soon the codenamed
"Tassilo cleaned up after Gustavo's testing", since "Gustavo did the
testing again" would probably raise user's eyebrows at this
point. ;-)
I'd be very suspicious if my name occurred in any release codename.
I'm
an expert in testing exactly the things that still work. :-)
hahaha, It seems so am I! :-)
Bye,
Gustavo
_______________________________________________
bug-auctex mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
