[Bug-AUCTeX] Re: 2005-06-15; wrong-type-argument with LaTeX-includegraphics-read-file-relative

[Franz Haeuslschmid]

David Kastrup writes:

> Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

>> As an example, I often abort the insertion of labels when adding a
>> sectioning command and would not want to have everything rolled back
>> in this case.  But this mostly occurs when I am testing stuff and
>> not during normal writing, so this might not be representative.
>>
>> But we are not (yet) talking about `LaTeX-section' but about
>> `TeX-insert-macro'.  Currently I don't have an example where it
>> could be useful to abort the insertion and be happy with the
>> inserted plain macro.  So it would be fine with me.  What about
>> other people?

I would appreciate it, if macro insertion worked like environment
or section insertion.  I have noticed (at least for inserting
section `section' and environment `figure'), that there are two
phases of inserting stuff.  First, the user is asked for details
specific for the section or environment.  For example, when I
want to insert a new figure, there are questions about caption,
float position and so on.  During the course of answering those
questions, I can hit `C-g' and my buffer stays untouched.  The
very last question handles the label (if there is a caption), and
before that, the environment is output.  I can define a label or
abort, however the buffer (with the newly created environment) is
now in a state, where I can build the document.

Maybe you should consider two phases, when you let the user
insert a section, environment or a macro:

 * ask the details.  If the user wants to abort, let him do so
   and the buffer is not changed.
 * if there is a caption, ask for the label. If the user wants no
   label, let him do so, however, the previously inserted stuff
   is kept.

> I think that we should rather try to have the buffer in reasonable
> intermediate states when prompts come up, so that C-g does not leave
> them more inconvenient than necessary.  And if people don't want to do
> the arguments in the AUCTeX way, we should not sulk and say "ok, you
> don't get anything then".
>
>> In case we want that, I could check in the attached patch.  (That's
>> actually the first macro I've ever written.  Nobody tell me that
>> this would be better done with something like defalias or
>> defun. (c;)
>
> Macros not in need of being special are more often than not
> conveniently written using defsubst.  I have not actually taken a look
> whether this applies here because I don't think it a really good idea,
> anyway.

The statement above reflects my observation on one section type
and the `figure' environment.  Thus it may be that other
environment or section types are handled in a different manner.
However, wouldn't it be reasonable to force a consistent behavior
as sections, environments and macros are inserted?

Franz.