bug#28456: 11.90.2.2017-07-25; \\input parsing

[Pierre Lorenzon]

Hi Mosè,

Here is a small hack to fix this bug in particular case I
encountered but I am not sure that the regexp is able to render
the whole complexity of expressions that might be parsed.


>>>  -- Patch 
(defconst regexp-input
  
"input{\\(\\(\\(\\.*\\)/\\)*[^#}%\\.\n\r]+\\)\\(\\.[^#}%\\.\n\r]+\\)?}"
  "Regexp used to match \\input{something}")

(defconst regexp-include
  
"include{\\(\\(\\(\\.*\\)/\\)*[^#}%\\.\n\r]+\\)\\(\\.[^#}%\\.\n\r]+\\)?}"
  "Regexp used to match \\include{something}")

(add-to-list 'LaTeX-auto-regexp-list
  (list regexp-input 1 'TeX-auto-file))
(add-to-list 'LaTeX-auto-regexp-list
  (list regexp-include 1 'TeX-auto-file))

>>>  -- End Patch


It is clear that two constants above derive from the same
expression and that a common model might certainly be defined
for all these regexps.



Pierre



From: Mosè Giordano 
Subject: Re: bug#28456: 11.90.2.2017-07-25; \\input parsing
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:44:15 +0200

> Hi Pierre,
> 
> 
> 2017-09-14 7:55 GMT+02:00 Pierre Lorenzon :
>> As if second \input
>>   \input{../../Exercices/Ensembles/Applications-Proprietes}
>>
>> were not parsed when first one
>>
>>   \input{Introduction}
>>
>> is. In fact looking carefully at regexp used to match \\input
>> which is part of the LaTeX-auto-regexp-list variable, it
>> clearly appears that an path like \input{../../something} will
>> not be parsed.
> 
> I can reproduce the error and confirm your analysis.
> 
>> Question is why? When LaTex allows inputs with so complexe
>> paths, why are they not parse by auctex?
> 
> It's hard to answer the question: that regexp has been there for more
> than 20 years now ;-)
> 
> I don't have the time to do it now (I also have a flaky Internet
> connection in this period), but if someone wants to tackle this issue,
> I fixed something similar for \addbibresource a few months ago:
> 
> * b2f69e18 (2017-03-31)  Fix detection of bibliography files with
> dots in path
> 
> Please, also add a test.  Maybe this could be an occasion to review
> similar regexps (for \include, \bibliography, etc), or maybe have a
> common variable for all this cases.
> 
> Bye,
> Mosè



___
bug-auctex mailing list
bug-auctex@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex

bug#28456: 11.90.2.2017-07-25; \\input parsing

[Mosè Giordano]

Hi Pierre,


2017-09-14 7:55 GMT+02:00 Pierre Lorenzon :
> As if second \input
>   \input{../../Exercices/Ensembles/Applications-Proprietes}
>
> were not parsed when first one
>
>   \input{Introduction}
>
> is. In fact looking carefully at regexp used to match \\input
> which is part of the LaTeX-auto-regexp-list variable, it
> clearly appears that an path like \input{../../something} will
> not be parsed.

I can reproduce the error and confirm your analysis.

> Question is why? When LaTex allows inputs with so complexe
> paths, why are they not parse by auctex?

It's hard to answer the question: that regexp has been there for more
than 20 years now ;-)

I don't have the time to do it now (I also have a flaky Internet
connection in this period), but if someone wants to tackle this issue,
I fixed something similar for \addbibresource a few months ago:

* b2f69e18 (2017-03-31)  Fix detection of bibliography files with
dots in path

Please, also add a test.  Maybe this could be an occasion to review
similar regexps (for \include, \bibliography, etc), or maybe have a
common variable for all this cases.

Bye,
Mosè



___
bug-auctex mailing list
bug-auctex@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex