Re: [AUCTeX] (New?) No indentation in some circumstances

[Mosè Giordano]

Hi Denise,

2016-06-19 18:18 GMT+02:00 Denis Bitouzé <address@hidden>:
> Hi,
>
> consider the following minimal `.dtx' example:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> %    \begin{macrocode}
> \newcommand{\blah}{%
>   \textbf{%
>     blah%
>   }%
> }
> \newcommand*{\bleh}{%
>   address@hidden
>     \begin{tabular}{l}
>       }{%
>       \begin{tabular}{r}
>         }%
>         bleh
>       \end{tabular}
>       }
>       \newcommand{\blih}[1]{%
>       \textbf{%
>       blih%
>       }%
>       }
> %    \end{macrocode}
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> The content of the \blah macro can be indented as usually with the TAB
> key.
>
> But, I guess because of the disruptive two \begin{tabular} for only one
> \end{tabular}, the content of the \blih macro cannot be properly
> indented.
>
> IIRC, indentation used to work properly in both cases.

Are you sure it used to work in this case?  If you could provide a
version where it worked we could try to look for the culprit.

> Do you know what's going on?

I think you got it right: unbalanced "\begin" and "\end" are a
problem.  A couple of possible dirty workarounds: if possible, move
the offending code in a separate file in order not to break
indentation for the rest of the code; make "\newcommand" a verbatim
command (I don't remember it it's possible to do it for two-argument
macros, though).  In addition, can't you do the conditional test on
the argument of "\begin{tabular}" only and call "\begin{tabular}" just
once?

In any case, I'm not sure it's good LaTeX-style to define commands
that fiddle with "\begin" and "\end".  Shouldn't this be a task of
"\newenvironment"?

Bye,
Mosè