Hi Philipp, please keep "Cc: 58...@debbugs.gnu.org" when you reply so that the thread of the discussion remain in the bug tracker.
>>>>> "Philipp G. Haselwarter" <phil...@haselwarter.org> writes: > Dear Keita, > Thank you for looking into this issue. > I frequently use indirect buffers when editing longer tex documents. > When I need to modify more than one part of a document at a time, > I split the base buffer via C-x 4 c `clone-indirect-buffer-other-window`. > This has the advantage that each view of the buffer has its own notion > of region, point, and marks. Frankly, I'd be surprised if this didn't affect > a fairly large number of users, as C-x 4 c is bound in vanilla Emacs. > The `(buffer-file-name (buffer-base-buffer))` pattern is pretty common, > for instance a simple grep in the emacs repo yields 58 hits alone, so I > think it's a reasonable solution. I would of course be happy to test and > report any other related issues that may arise. Thank you for your reply. It's probably true that `buffer-base-buffer' makes `buffer-file-name' usable in indirect buffers. However, what I'm worrying is that other potential incompatibilities sparsely continue to pop up and each ad-hoc deal eventually amounts to make AUCTeX unstable, given a lot of subtlety regarding to `TeX-master-file'.[1] Any takers out there? (My preliminary idea is, as I wrote in my previous message, to modify C-c C-c and alikes so that they suggest to switch to the base buffer and run there when they are called in an indirect buffer.) Regards, Ikumi Keita #StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine [1] Thread titled "Output to directory patch" in https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/auctex-devel/2021-02/threads.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/auctex-devel/2021-03/threads.html _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
