Hello, Leo Vivier <leo.viv...@gmail.com> writes:
> I understand. The rationale behind this idea was that it would only > modify the way narrowing works for subtrees just as AUCTeX's > `LaTeX-narrow-to-environment' works for environments. That's why I > didn't think it was a problem. It doesn't work the way `LaTeX-narrow-to-environment' works. In particular, AUCTeX's function /does not modify the buffer/. This is a big no-no, really. > You don't need to apologise, I went down this route because it was an > interesting project to address my problems with 1-line subtrees. As > I've said in the commit message, even if we address the problem of other > commands not seeing content added outside of the narrowing, we're still > left with the other problem which is that the user is not seeing those > changes. I wasn't content with this solution, and that's what prompted > me to write this. I suggest to not use narrowing, then. Maybe try editing remotely a subtree, similar to what is done for footnotes. I have the feeling this would have its own set of issues, too. > Could I suggest you try out this patch with its latest commit (sent on > Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:18:47 +0100) and gauge whether it affects your > workflow negatively? It is not about my workflow. I don't use 1-line subtrees. But anything related to narrowing or widening should not alter the buffer, per design. I may sound stubborn, but I don't think this is a way to handle the problem. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou