Re: [AUCTeX-devel] pretty patch

[Uwe Brauer]

   > Uwe Brauer <address@hidden> writes:
   > Hi Uwe,


   > What you submitted is a patch for two mercurial changesets.  I.e., the
   > first one is the one that didn't compile (because there's the
   > @font-latex-fontify-script{} and «...»), and the second one is your
   > final result.

   > I'm not interested in the history of how you came to the final result
   > and don't want to have a non-compilable revision for no reason, so could
   > you please create a patch that just presents your final result.  (So
   > basically, what I request is that you squash your two commits into one.
   > You'd do that with git rebase --interactive.  There's also a rebase
   > extension for mercurial though I can't tell you how to operate it
   > exactly.)

   > Anyway, some comments towards the final patch below:


   > Please use this commit message format:

   > <one very brief summary line>

   > <Changes and additions using ChangeLog format>

   > To generate valid ChangeLog style messages, simply place point on the
   > text you changed or edited (or on the hunk in a diff buffer) and do `C-x
   > 4 a'.  That will query for a ChangeLog file.  We don't have them
   > anymore, so just create a new one.  Take your notes, and then kill and
   > yank it into your commit message.


   > Please use @code{} also for "invisible".  That will add the quotes
   > automatically.


   > I think you can remove that pretty, the text is very prettified
   > anyhow. ;-)


   > Remove the comma after feature.


   > Use @xref here which will generate the "see ..." automatically.

Wait the original code is
@ref{Top,,Introduction,preview-latex,The @previewlatex{}
Manual}

You say @xref{previewlatex} is sufficient.


   > Please note instead of Note please.
Well the first is standard, but are sure that the second is bad style?


   > As mentioned above: @code{invisible}.
Now I a confused I had @code{^}, so the logical would be to have
@code{'address@hidden'}, but you seem to suggest to use
@code{invisible}, is that correct?

   > Now I know why you think this delete thingy needs a remark while I
   > didn't think so.  I've set `prettify-symbols-unprettify-at-point' to
   > `right-edge' since it existed (and to t before that).  So when point is
   > immediately at the right edge of a prettified symbol here, it is
   > unprettified.  That makes it extremely obvious that <backspace> will
   > only delete one char and not the complete symbol.

What's about; the variable @code{prettify-symbols-unprettify-at-point}
controls the display when the cursor is over or near the symbol in
question. If set to nil the corresponding TeX-command will not be shown.

Uwe