Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Usability of docTeX-mode

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2006-07-22) writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> * David Kastrup (2006-07-14) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> But to save the user the work of rescanning the buffer after a change
>>>>> of the parsing variables seems a bit pointless.
>>>>
>>>> Not if you want to spare the user having to think about rescanning the
>>>> buffer.  That's one thing less the user has to care about.  Is there a
>>>> reason not to be as userfriendly as possible if that's achievable with
>>>> moderate effort?
>>>
>>> I consider it not userfriendly to double the amount of variables he
>>> has to look for.  If we want to save the user the trouble of applying
>>> his changes manually to existing buffers after customization, we can
>>> use an appropriate setter function.
>>
>> Something like
>>
>> (defun TeX-local-list-setter (var value)
>
> Evaluating
>
> (progn
>   (defun TeX-local-list-setter (var value)
>     (let ((old (symbol-value var)) tail)
>       (dolist (buffer (buffer-list))
>       (when (local-variable-p var buffer)
>         (with-current-buffer buffer
>           (setq tail (symbol-value var))
>           (while (consp tail)
>             (if (eq (cdr tail) old)
>                 (progn
>                   (setcdr tail value)
>                   (setq tail nil))
>               (setq tail (cdr tail))))))))
>     (custom-set-default var value))
>
>   (defcustom foo nil
>     "Some var.")

Uh what?

(defcustom foo '(c d e)
  "Some var."
  :set 'TeX-local-list-setter)
(make-local-variable 'foo)
(add-to-list 'foo 'a)
(add-to-list 'foo 'b)
(customize-variable 'foo)

>   (make-local-variable 'foo)
>   (TeX-local-list-setter 'foo '(a b))
>   (customize-variable 'foo))
>
> will result in
>
> foo: Hide Value (a b)
>    State: CHANGED outside Customize; operating on it here may be unreliable.
>
> That means there are two effects I don't want to happen.

I am afraid that you misunderstood my proposal.

> First, the changed value shows up in the customization buffer.  If a
> style file adds some elements to the respective list I don't want
> the user to see them because those additional elements are purely a
> result of the LaTex files he loaded before and not the general case.
> Second, the State description issues a warning that operating on the
> value may be unreliable.  That might be confusing for the user.  I
> don't know if this is intentional, though.
>
> Again, the user has no business in looking at the local variables.

Please reevaluate according to the example above.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum