[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday? |
Date: |
Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:02:30 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden writes:
> Hi David (and Mosè),
>
>
>> It's not just preview-latex. It makes good sense to avoid line-wrapping
>> stuff like $\sum_{i=0}^2 i$ in the middle even when not using
>> preview-latex. Using preview-latex leads to overlong lines when a line
>> break in the middle gets hidden. Which makes it a good idea in the
>> context of preview-latex to break after the final $ again _iff_ there is
>> a line break in the middle. So the "break after" rules are mostly
>> interesting in the context of preview-latex. But the "break before"
>> rules which move a formula to the next line if it would otherwise be
>> broken across lines certainly make sense also outside of preview-latex.
>>
>
> The point is that, until a month or so ago when the bug was corrected,
> such line break as you describe *never* happened *by default* for
> '$...$' inline formulae. In fact, when the bug was corrected and line
> break started to behave as you describe, a user wrote to the auctex
> mailing list, asking on why the new "odd" line-breaking behaviour.
No, after the "fix" lines got broken after $...$ even when $...$ fitted
perfectly well onto the line.
I'm pretty sure that the functionality worked fine a few years ago since
I had been using it extensively then (I've not been doing as much
recently). So there must have been changes in between for the worse.
> So, to put LaTeX-fill-break-at-separators to nil or to (better in my
> opinion) (\\\[ \\\]) by default, is actually to revert to the filling
> behaviour that auctex had for several years...
>
> ...Or am I missing something?
I'm pretty sure about that. I'm currently in a bind regarding tax
deadlines so I cannot really start investigating. But I'm pretty sure
that something in either Emacs or AUCTeX must have significantly
changed.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, (continued)
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, Mosè Giordano, 2015/11/04
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, David Kastrup, 2015/11/04
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, David Kastrup, 2015/11/04
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, Tassilo Horn, 2015/11/04
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, Mosè Giordano, 2015/11/04
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, Mosè Giordano, 2015/11/06
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, Mosè Giordano, 2015/11/10
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, Mosè Giordano, 2015/11/04
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, David Kastrup, 2015/11/04
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?, gojjoe, 2015/11/04
- Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?,
David Kastrup <=