Hello Ikumia
> Your proposition sounds very much like the one proposed in this list a
> while ago. See the thread beginning with
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/auctex-devel/2020-06/msg00031.html
> . I'm cc'ing to Tohiko Looka, the original poster of the above thread.
Indeed the propositions
Hi Al,
Your proposition sounds very much like the one proposed in this list a
while ago. See the thread beginning with
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/auctex-devel/2020-06/msg00031.html
. I'm cc'ing to Tohiko Looka, the original poster of the above thread.
The thread seems to be dormant now
Hi Ikumi,
> On the other hand, I don't understand the intention of this proposal. In
> both cases, the variable `name' is properly defined as a function
> argument of TeX-save-document and TeX-command-default, respectively. So
> I don't see point in using TeX-active-master here. Am I missing
>
Hi Ikumi,
> TeX-active-master just calls TeX-master-file or TeX-region-file
> depending on the value of TeX-current-process-region-p, which is set
> early stage in TeX-command. So TeX-active-master would usually be a
> drop-in replacement for TeX-master-file and TeX-region-file as long as
> it
Hi Al,
> Al Haji-Ali writes:
> The documentation of `TeX-view-program-list` does not mention `file`
> as a variable. So from this perspective, IMO it is justifiable to
> normalize the treatment of this variable.
I don't have strong objection about this perspective.
> With that being said,
Hi Ikumi,
Thanks for the feedback!
> In my humble opinion, it's a bit dangerous to presume so. In general, a
> user can have an entry in TeX-view-program-list like
> ("XYZ" my-TeX-view-open-XYZ)
> where the second symbol is one's own elisp function. If that function
> assumes that the variable
Hi Al,
> Al Haji-Ali writes:
> To start with, I think the first change is to ensure that the variable
> `file` (or the lexically-scoped alternative) is not used as a string.
> Since this is an internal variable, I think user config is not an
> issue.
In my humble opinion, it's a bit
Hi Ikumi,
>> Would changing that to calling the appropriate filename function be
>> acceptable in my contribution?
>
> Probably yes, provided that your contribution is careful enough not to
> break compatibility with existing codes including users' customization.
>
To start with, I think the
Hi Al,
> Al Haji-Ali writes:
> However, I noticed that in functions in `tex.el` like
> `TeX-pdf-tools-sync-view` and `TeX-evince-sync-view-1` the filename of the
> output file is constructed from the `file` variable along with
> `(TeX-output-extension)` instead of calling the filename
I am working on a contribution for AUCTeX that uses the fact that
`TeX-master-file`, and similar functions, are called with an extension to
get the output files.
However, I noticed that in functions in `tex.el` like
`TeX-pdf-tools-sync-view` and `TeX-evince-sync-view-1` the filename of the
output
10 matches
Mail list logo
