[debbugs-tracker] bug#21645: closed (Inquiry: reproducibility of a paragraph-fill bug)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:00:53 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#21645: Inquiry: reproducibility of a paragraph-fill bug
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #21645,
regarding Inquiry: reproducibility of a paragraph-fill bug
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
21645: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21645
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Inquiry: reproducibility of a paragraph-fill bug
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:57:56 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Thunderbird/666
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I noticed that both fill-paragraph and LaTeX-fill-paragraph, 
> called on a paragraph that contains "\( ... \)" inline math, 
> will break lines after each "\)", except those on the last 
> line. For example ("*" indicates where lines break, in case 
> formatting is lost via email);
>
> blah blah blah \(blah\)*
> blah \(blah\)*
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 
> blah blah*
> blah blah \(blah\)*
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 
> blah blah*
> blah blah blah blah \(blah\) blah \(blah\) blah.
>
> Weird behaviour, it appears also launching Emacs with the 
> --no-init-file option.
>
> Can you reproduce this? If so, is this to be considered a 
> bug of fill.el or auctex?
>
> Cheers,
> J
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#21645: Inquiry: reproducibility of a paragraph-fill bug
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:00:53 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> address@hidden writes:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Thank you very much. My bad, I should've checked this beforehand (and it 
> > wasn't
> > my intention to submit a bug).  I didn't imagine there could be such a 
> > (useful)
> > feature
>
> Now you see. :-)
>
> > – or I would've expected it to apply to '$...$' as well by default.
>
> Yes, I think this has been a bug (at least since 2004) which I have
> fixed right now.  So now \(...\) and $...$ and \[...\] and $$...$$
> should be treated equally.
>
> I'm closing this bug.
>
> Bye,
> Tassilo
>
>
> --- End Message ---