Hi Keita,
Ikumi Keita <[email protected]> writes:
> Yes. As far as I can see, texmathp.el doesn't pay attention to verbatim
> constructs at all. I think that's an intention of Carsten Dominik.
Thanks for confirming. I'm not sure about the intention behind it, but
I think we should if we can fix this issue.
> Maybe we can make texmathp syntax-aware (that is, to look into "string
> quotes" syntax.) Currently, I'm not sure whether that's easy or not.
My simple idea was to have an extra check at the end of `texmathp'
itself in terms of: Pass the possible point for math-on to
`LaTeX-verbatim-p' and see what it returs. I think the possibility for
$ a \verb|$| $ <= invoke texmathp here
is next to zero while this
$ a $ \verb|$| <= invoke texmathp here
or this
\begin{verbatim}
$
\begin{end}
<= invoke texmathp here
are not so far away, from user POV.
> Do you think it's important to have this feature? (I'm neutral to the
> importance.)
I'd say yes: Imagine you want to write a trivial example of bash command
in your document:
\begin{verbatim}
$ touch foo
\begin{end}
currently breaks.
Best, Arash
_______________________________________________
bug-auctex mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
