Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Minor bug and a few other things

[Lars Madsen]

wouldn't the best thing be the predefine "known" pairs of delimiters. That 
should make it a lot easier to get the correct nesting level.

I have a construction to handle scalers plus () and [] (it is using sexp to 
find the matching end brace). I'd like to see something more general such that 
a key stroke can search forward from the current position locate the first 
"left left" and mark the corresponding "right fence" and ask for which type of 
scaling.

That might be a better starting point than attempting to cover every scaler + 
fence combo known. Some are frequently used, others not so much.

/Lars Madsen
Institut for Matematik / Department of Mathematics
Aarhus Universitet / Aarhus University
Mere info: http://au.dk/address@hidden / More information: 
http://au.dk/en/address@hidden


________________________________________
From: address@hidden address@hidden on behalf of Marcin Borkowski address@hidden
Sent: 29 April 2015 22:21
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Minor bug and a few other things

On 2015-04-29, at 08:23, Tassilo Horn <address@hidden> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Hi Marcin,
>
>> this is a bit nitpicky, but I'm studying tex.el, and I found yet
>> another (very minor) docstring bug.  The docstring for
>> TeX-string-divide-number-unit says "Return the number as car and unit
>> as cdr", but in fact it returns a two-element list, not a dotted pair.
>
> Corrected.

Thanks!

>> OTOH, I'm working on my delimiter managing code.  I can now find a
>> matching \right or \bigl or \biggl etc., and enlarge or diminish both
>> sides (e.g., go from \bigl .. \bigr to \Bigl .. \Bigr etc.) with a
>> keystroke.  Next in the queue is LaTeX-delimiter-aware
>> show-paren-mode, which will highlight matching "\right." when we are
>> at "\left\{" etc.
>
> Do you use SMIE for that (info "(elisp)SMIE")?  It would be very cool if
> one could use `forward-sexp'/`backward-sexp' for navigating (La)TeX
> code.

No, but I'll take a look.  I'm afraid, though, that it might not be
enough.  Consider these cases:

\bigl( .. \bigr)

\bigl[ .. \bigr)

\bigl[ .. bigr[    % this is no mistake, some people use this notation!

\left\{ .. \right.

\bigl\langle .. \bigr)

\bigl[ .. \bigr|

\langle .. )

All the above are valid, paired delimiters.  Can SMIE handle that?  (I'm
not saying it can't, I just want to know.  Reading its docs will take me
some time, and I won't be able to do it until at least Friday.  In fact,
I'm just back home from a one-day visit at a TeX conference;-).)

>> And while we are at it, there's an annoying typo in mathtools.el:
>> three times it says "delimeter" instead of "delimiter".
>
> Fixed.  Thank you!

You're welcome!

> Bye,
> Tassilo

Best,

--
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

_______________________________________________
auctex-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel