Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: [AUCTeX-commit] auctex tex.el

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2006-02-07) writes:

>>> Anyway, why use a string here as argument for TeX-run-function?  Seems
>>> ugly, when actually a list is used.
>>
>> Because it's pumped through `TeX-command-expand'.  By using a string
>> we don't have to check for the variable's type in `TeX-command'.
>
> I am not really convinced that is a good reason...  Engaging the Lisp
> reader for normal operation seems awkward.

Using a string looked less perverted to me than using a list.  Problem
is that we are introducing a dependency between items in
`TeX-command-list'.  All the "old" functions which can be specified at
the third position of a command list item expect a string.  Allowing a
list instead of a string at the second position of a command list item
without looking at what function is used at the third position looks
problematic to me.

>> And because that way we don't have to insert a choice in the
>> defcustom for `TeX-command-list'.
>
> Is it really worth that?

Apart from the concerns mentioned above, `TeX-command-list' is already
_very_ crowded.  I'd like to avoid more confusing options if possible.
I already thought about changing it to a defvar and advising users to
generally use `add-to-list' for augmenting the variable.

I know my approach looks peculiar but I still think it's less
problematic than the alternative.

-- 
Ralf