Re: AUCTeX and "builtin latex mode" integration

[Ikumi Keita]

>>>>> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> Indeed which symbol is used as *the* file-type is somewhat arbitrary.
> In the case of ConTeXt, it makes sense to use `ConTeXt-mode`.

> And I'd agree that there's also a good case to be made for `LaTeX-mode`,
> but history (and general Emacs practice of using lowercase symbols) is
> arguing fairly strongly in favor of `latex-mode`.

In addition to "%%% mode: ConTeXt" and "%%% mode: latex", I feel uneasy
to have
%%% mode: japanese-LaTeX
and
%%% mode: latex
due to their incoherency as well 😇

Moreover, the whole story began with complaint that the common mode
name is confusing. ("It isn't intuitive that latex-mode-hook is
ineffective in AUCTeX latex-mode.") Thus the primary aim of all these
efforts is to make clear distinction between latex-mode and LaTeX-mode.
The principle that the "mode:" cookie should describe the file-type
rather than specify the "mode" to use contradicts to this aim, if it
imposes priority for
%%% mode: latex    (describing the file type)
over
%%% mode: LaTeX    (specifying the mode name)
; it would leave the original problem unresolved and lose the core
objective of the whole attempt of this feature branch.

Maybe it isn't a good idea to load such two-fold roles on "mode:"
tag and Emacs should have something different (e.g. some kind of "sub"
tag?) to achieve the fine distinction between `describing the file type'
and `specifying the mode name`.

Regards,
Ikumi Keita
#StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine