bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
> So bug#70607 is the next to tackle? [thumbs up emoji, in case it doesn't render] ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Paul Nelson writes: > Many thanks, Arash, for the explanation. I'll be happy to adjust my > patch as you suggest if/when this is revisited. > For now, I wanted to remark that I don't see the patch installed when > I do git pull (or at https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/auctex.git, for > that matter). Sorry, forgot to push, happened now. Note that I also adjusted preview-latex.texi. > I have one minor follow-up to this patch that I hoped to submit, and > then a bug-fix that I'll submit (after bug#70607 is closed, to avoid > merge conflicts), and then (fingers crossed) will lay off with the > patches for a bit. So bug#70607 is the next to tackle? Best, Arash ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Many thanks, Arash, for the explanation. I'll be happy to adjust my patch as you suggest if/when this is revisited. For now, I wanted to remark that I don't see the patch installed when I do git pull (or at https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/auctex.git, for that matter). I have one minor follow-up to this patch that I hoped to submit, and then a bug-fix that I'll submit (after bug#70607 is closed, to avoid merge conflicts), and then (fingers crossed) will lay off with the patches for a bit. Thanks again and best, Paul On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 3:58 PM Arash Esbati wrote: > > Paul Nelson writes: > > > Do you see an advantage to modifying the behavior of the function > > rather than the default customization value? > > I think it is cleaner; we have this sort of parsing also in other places > around within AUCTeX. But since I'm currently not able to change this, > I've installed your patch. We can revisit this later if necessary. > > Again, thanks for the patch and also responding to my messages. > Closing. > > Best, Arash ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Paul Nelson writes: > Do you see an advantage to modifying the behavior of the function > rather than the default customization value? I think it is cleaner; we have this sort of parsing also in other places around within AUCTeX. But since I'm currently not able to change this, I've installed your patch. We can revisit this later if necessary. Again, thanks for the patch and also responding to my messages. Closing. Best, Arash ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
> --8<---cut here---start->8--- > diff --git a/tex-fold.el b/tex-fold.el > index 62f0834c..cb0f4592 100644 > --- a/tex-fold.el > +++ b/tex-fold.el > @@ -910,6 +910,11 @@ See `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' for definitions of MODE." > Return non-nil if called by one of the commands in LIST." >(memq this-command list)) > > +(defvar-local TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands nil > + "List of external commands which may cause a fold to be revealed. > +This is list is intended for external packages where they can add their > +functions to.") > + > ;; Copy and adaption of `reveal-post-command' from reveal.el in GNU > ;; Emacs on 2004-07-04. > (defun TeX-fold-post-command () > @@ -932,7 +937,8 @@ Return non-nil if called by one of the commands in LIST." >(setq TeX-fold-open-spots (cdr spots)) >(when (or disable-point-adjustment > global-disable-point-adjustment > -(TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p TeX-fold-auto-reveal)) > +(TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p TeX-fold-auto-reveal) > +(TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p > TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands)) > ;; Open new overlays. > (dolist (ol (nconc (when (and TeX-fold-unfold-around-mark >(TeX-active-mark)) > --8<---cut here---end--->8--- > > So we don't touch `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' and just check if > `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands' contains code, just like > `TeX-fold-auto-reveal'. WDYT? This would need a bit of tweaking (since TeX-fold-auto-reveal doesn't accept a list argument), but assuming that tweak: I think with most use cases (including mine), there's no functional difference between this last proposal and the original patch. The comparison, as I see it, is that this last proposal (1) uses defvar-local rather than defcustom, and (2) hard-codes the "external-commands" alternative. My reason for preferring the alternative to (1) is that users might wish to add their own navigation-based commands, so making it a defcustom would improve discoverability. Also, I don't foresee defvar-local giving an advantage over defvar here, but might have missed something. For (2), I didn't want to deny the user of the flexibility that they currently enjoy, where they could customize the reveal behavior to depend upon the moon cycle. Finally, I'll remark that I planned to submit a follow-up patch to this one slightly expanding the default collection of reveal commands (adding #'undo and #'pop-to-mark-command). Do you see an advantage to modifying the behavior of the function rather than the default customization value? Thanks, best, Paul ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Paul Nelson writes: > I don't see how this helps. We can't add commands as additional > arguments to the user-provided my-cool-function, because we don't know > its semantics. (Maybe it only takes two arguments, and maybe those > arguments are strings or the time of day or the moon cycle rather than > commands that should be compared against this-command.) You're a tough customer ;-) What about this approach: --8<---cut here---start->8--- diff --git a/tex-fold.el b/tex-fold.el index 62f0834c..cb0f4592 100644 --- a/tex-fold.el +++ b/tex-fold.el @@ -910,6 +910,11 @@ See `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' for definitions of MODE." Return non-nil if called by one of the commands in LIST." (memq this-command list)) +(defvar-local TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands nil + "List of external commands which may cause a fold to be revealed. +This is list is intended for external packages where they can add their +functions to.") + ;; Copy and adaption of `reveal-post-command' from reveal.el in GNU ;; Emacs on 2004-07-04. (defun TeX-fold-post-command () @@ -932,7 +937,8 @@ Return non-nil if called by one of the commands in LIST." (setq TeX-fold-open-spots (cdr spots)) (when (or disable-point-adjustment global-disable-point-adjustment -(TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p TeX-fold-auto-reveal)) +(TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p TeX-fold-auto-reveal) +(TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands)) ;; Open new overlays. (dolist (ol (nconc (when (and TeX-fold-unfold-around-mark (TeX-active-mark)) --8<---cut here---end--->8--- So we don't touch `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' and just check if `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands' contains code, just like `TeX-fold-auto-reveal'. WDYT? Best, Arash ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
(Sorry Arash, I noticed just now that I forgot to reply-all) On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:55 PM Arash Esbati wrote: > > Paul Nelson writes: > > > I think essentially the same criticism applies. What if the user has > > customized *-reveal to, say, '(eval (my-cool-function (my-arg-1 > > my-arg-2))), with totally different semantics than the default? Then > > the tweaks under "Clause added" would become meaningless. > > Well, my answer would be: Don't use `eval' and do > > '(my-cool-function (my-arg-1 my-arg-2)) I don't see how this helps. We can't add commands as additional arguments to the user-provided my-cool-function, because we don't know its semantics. (Maybe it only takes two arguments, and maybe those arguments are strings or the time of day or the moon cycle rather than commands that should be compared against this-command.) > > > Is the intent behind your suggestions that you'd like to keep the > > number of customizable variables low, or something else? > > No, I think I'm trying to avoid the case where we introduce a new list > (custom option) which is probably not needed and we have to deal with it > only because of that `eval'. Is that eval actually needed at all? I suppose the "eval" could be moved from the customization option into *-reveal-p function, but I don't see what this gains (other than forcing anyone who has customized this option to adjust their config). I don't see any way to allow the user to do everything they want (the current behavior), keep the interface the same, and make the list of commands easily extensible other than by adding an additional list variable. The variable seemed best to me as a customization option, since the user might wish to add to it in their own config, but could just as well be a defvar as far as I'm concerned. Other suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, best, Paul ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Paul Nelson writes: > I think essentially the same criticism applies. What if the user has > customized *-reveal to, say, '(eval (my-cool-function (my-arg-1 > my-arg-2))), with totally different semantics than the default? Then > the tweaks under "Clause added" would become meaningless. Well, my answer would be: Don't use `eval' and do '(my-cool-function (my-arg-1 my-arg-2)) > Is the intent behind your suggestions that you'd like to keep the > number of customizable variables low, or something else? No, I think I'm trying to avoid the case where we introduce a new list (custom option) which is probably not needed and we have to deal with it only because of that `eval'. Is that eval actually needed at all? Best, Arash ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Hi Arash, > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > (defun TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p (mode) > "Decide whether to auto-reveal. > Return non-nil if folded region should be auto-opened. > See `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' for definitions of MODE." > (cond ((symbolp mode) > (and (boundp mode) > (symbol-value mode))) > ;; Clause modified: > ((and (consp mode) > (null TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands)) > (apply (car mode) (cdr mode))) > ;; Clause added: > ((and (consp mode) TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands) > (if (eq (car mode) #'eval) > (apply (car mode) (cons (caadr mode) > (append > TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands > (cdadr mode >(apply (car mode) (append TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands > (cdr mode) > (t mode))) > --8<---cut here---end--->8--- I think essentially the same criticism applies. What if the user has customized *-reveal to, say, '(eval (my-cool-function (my-arg-1 my-arg-2))), with totally different semantics than the default? Then the tweaks under "Clause added" would become meaningless. Is the intent behind your suggestions that you'd like to keep the number of customizable variables low, or something else? Thanks, best, Paul ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Paul Nelson writes: > Currently, the user is promised that if *-reveal is a cons cell, then > *-reveal-p determines whether to reveal or not by applying CAR to CDR. > With the proposal in your email, it seems to me that that promise is > invalidated: the "Clause Added" branch in your proposal would behave > in strange ways when TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands is non-nil > and *-reveal is not of the same pattern as the default (in particular, > its CDR should be a list of commands). Conceivably some users have > customized this variable in other ways while keeping it a cons cell. I saw that, I think the issue is usage of `eval' in the default :-( What about this? --8<---cut here---start->8--- (defun TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p (mode) "Decide whether to auto-reveal. Return non-nil if folded region should be auto-opened. See `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' for definitions of MODE." (cond ((symbolp mode) (and (boundp mode) (symbol-value mode))) ;; Clause modified: ((and (consp mode) (null TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands)) (apply (car mode) (cdr mode))) ;; Clause added: ((and (consp mode) TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands) (if (eq (car mode) #'eval) (apply (car mode) (cons (caadr mode) (append TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands (cdadr mode (apply (car mode) (append TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands (cdr mode) (t mode))) --8<---cut here---end--->8--- Best, Arash ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Hi Arash, > Thanks. In this case, I think we can have a sort of API by patching the > function `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p' and declaring a standard var like this: > > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > (defvar-local TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands nil > "List of external commands which may cause a fold to be revealed. > This is list is intended for external packages ...") > > (defun TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p (mode) > "Decide whether to auto-reveal. > Return non-nil if folded region should be auto-opened. > See `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' for definitions of MODE." > (cond ((symbolp mode) > (and (boundp mode) > (symbol-value mode))) > ;; Clause modified: > ((and (consp mode) > (null TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands)) > (apply (car mode) (cdr mode))) > ;; Clause added: > ((and (consp mode) TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands) > (apply (car mode) (cons (caadr mode) > (append > TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands > (cdadr mode) > (t mode))) > --8<---cut here---end--->8--- > > Does this make sense? The question would then be: Should > `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands' be a regualar var or a custom > one? Currently, the user is promised that if *-reveal is a cons cell, then *-reveal-p determines whether to reveal or not by applying CAR to CDR. With the proposal in your email, it seems to me that that promise is invalidated: the "Clause Added" branch in your proposal would behave in strange ways when TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands is non-nil and *-reveal is not of the same pattern as the default (in particular, its CDR should be a list of commands). Conceivably some users have customized this variable in other ways while keeping it a cons cell. With my patch, I wanted to keep the existing interface the same, so that nobody would need to update their config (unless they have already explicitly customized *-reveal and choose to install a package that introduces commands that would make sense to include there, in which case they presumably know what they're doing and can add such commands on their own), but the default behavior would improve with external packages. Happy to discuss further. Thanks, best, Paul ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Hi Paul, Paul Nelson writes: > I think what you describe is indeed the plan, but I'll elaborate just > in case. I had in mind that external packages would add to > *-reveal-commands via setup functions, with lines such as > > (add-to-list 'preview-auto-reveal-commands #'tex-parens-down-list) > > Users can similarly add their own commands in their own config. This > is simpler than adding to the internals of the lisp form in the > current default value of *-reveal. > > Of course, this is only for users who use the default setting. Other > users can continue to customize the *-reveal behavior however they > prefer. Thanks. In this case, I think we can have a sort of API by patching the function `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p' and declaring a standard var like this: --8<---cut here---start->8--- (defvar-local TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands nil "List of external commands which may cause a fold to be revealed. This is list is intended for external packages ...") (defun TeX-fold-auto-reveal-p (mode) "Decide whether to auto-reveal. Return non-nil if folded region should be auto-opened. See `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' for definitions of MODE." (cond ((symbolp mode) (and (boundp mode) (symbol-value mode))) ;; Clause modified: ((and (consp mode) (null TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands)) (apply (car mode) (cdr mode))) ;; Clause added: ((and (consp mode) TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands) (apply (car mode) (cons (caadr mode) (append TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands (cdadr mode) (t mode))) --8<---cut here---end--->8--- Does this make sense? The question would then be: Should `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-external-commands' be a regualar var or a custom one? > I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "that value is > used when *-reveal is set". The value would be used every time the > lisp form in *-reveal is evaluated by the preview/folding libraries. Yes, sorry, I should have looked more carefully. I'm not that familiar with the code, so bear with me. Best, Arash ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Hi Arash, > thanks for the patch. I have one question: You suggest we introduce a > new custom option `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands' which will be used in > another custom option `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' in the setter? Is the plan > that users add functions provided by external packages to > `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands' and then that value is used when > `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' is set? Basically this hunk: > > > diff --git a/tex-fold.el b/tex-fold.el > > index 62f0834c..4f4ee377 100644 > > --- a/tex-fold.el > > +++ b/tex-fold.el > > @@ -257,10 +257,19 @@ After that, changing the prefix key requires > > manipulating keymaps." > > (define-key map "i"#'TeX-fold-clearout-item) > > map)) > > > > +(defcustom TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands > > + '((key-binding [left]) > > +(key-binding [right]) > > +backward-char > > +forward-char > > +mouse-set-point) > > + "List of commands that may cause a fold to be revealed. > > +This list is consulted by the default value of `TeX-fold-auto-reveal'." > > + :type '(repeat (choice (function :tag "Function") > > + (sexp :tag "Key binding" > > + > > (defcustom TeX-fold-auto-reveal > > - '(eval (TeX-fold-arrived-via (key-binding [left]) (key-binding [right]) > > - #'backward-char #'forward-char > > - #'mouse-set-point)) > > + '(eval (apply 'TeX-fold-arrived-via TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands)) > I think what you describe is indeed the plan, but I'll elaborate just in case. I had in mind that external packages would add to *-reveal-commands via setup functions, with lines such as (add-to-list 'preview-auto-reveal-commands #'tex-parens-down-list) Users can similarly add their own commands in their own config. This is simpler than adding to the internals of the lisp form in the current default value of *-reveal. Of course, this is only for users who use the default setting. Other users can continue to customize the *-reveal behavior however they prefer. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "that value is used when *-reveal is set". The value would be used every time the lisp form in *-reveal is evaluated by the preview/folding libraries. Thanks, best, Paul ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
Paul Nelson writes: > External packages (e.g., a couple that I've written) may wish to > provide navigation commands that automatically reveal previews and > folds, but auto-reveal behavior is currently controlled by defcustoms, > such as preview-auto-reveal, that are not easily extended: > > (defcustom preview-auto-reveal > '(eval (preview-arrived-via (key-binding [left]) (key-binding [right]) > #'backward-char #'forward-char)) > "...") > > I attach a patch that addresses this, without affecting default > behavior, by changing the default value of preview-auto-reveal so that > it refers to a list, (defcustom preview-auto-reveal-commands). > Similarly for TeX-fold-auto-reveal. Hi Paul, thanks for the patch. I have one question: You suggest we introduce a new custom option `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands' which will be used in another custom option `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' in the setter? Is the plan that users add functions provided by external packages to `TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands' and then that value is used when `TeX-fold-auto-reveal' is set? Basically this hunk: > diff --git a/tex-fold.el b/tex-fold.el > index 62f0834c..4f4ee377 100644 > --- a/tex-fold.el > +++ b/tex-fold.el > @@ -257,10 +257,19 @@ After that, changing the prefix key requires > manipulating keymaps." > (define-key map "i"#'TeX-fold-clearout-item) > map)) > > +(defcustom TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands > + '((key-binding [left]) > +(key-binding [right]) > +backward-char > +forward-char > +mouse-set-point) > + "List of commands that may cause a fold to be revealed. > +This list is consulted by the default value of `TeX-fold-auto-reveal'." > + :type '(repeat (choice (function :tag "Function") > + (sexp :tag "Key binding" > + > (defcustom TeX-fold-auto-reveal > - '(eval (TeX-fold-arrived-via (key-binding [left]) (key-binding [right]) > - #'backward-char #'forward-char > - #'mouse-set-point)) > + '(eval (apply 'TeX-fold-arrived-via TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands)) '(eval (apply #'TeX-fold-arrived-via TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands)) ? >"Predicate to open a fold when entered. > Possibilities are: > t autoopens, Best, Arash ___ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
bug#70525: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
External packages (e.g., a couple that I've written) may wish to
provide navigation commands that automatically reveal previews and
folds, but auto-reveal behavior is currently controlled by defcustoms,
such as preview-auto-reveal, that are not easily extended:
(defcustom preview-auto-reveal
'(eval (preview-arrived-via (key-binding [left]) (key-binding [right])
#'backward-char #'forward-char))
"...")
I attach a patch that addresses this, without affecting default
behavior, by changing the default value of preview-auto-reveal so that
it refers to a list, (defcustom preview-auto-reveal-commands).
Similarly for TeX-fold-auto-reveal.
Thanks, best,
Paul
From 69772c95c0a0eb7b417bbf1e7e5f295a8868575c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Nelson
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 05:49:01 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make auto-reveal customizations easier to extend
* preview.el.in (preview-auto-reveal-commands): New user option.
(preview-auto-reveal): Use it.
* tex-fold.el (TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands): New user option.
(TeX-fold-auto-reveal): Use it.
(doc/auctex.texi): Document it.
---
doc/auctex.texi | 12 +---
preview.el.in | 13 +++--
tex-fold.el | 15 ---
3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/auctex.texi b/doc/auctex.texi
index 4d338c39..05695f0f 100644
--- a/doc/auctex.texi
+++ b/doc/auctex.texi
@@ -2864,9 +2864,15 @@ Cons cell @code{(@var{FUNCTION} . @var{ARGUMENTS})}: @AUCTeX{} calls the
is regarded as a boolean flag.
@end itemize
-It has a reasonable default value to reveal when the point enters the
-folded portion with @kbd{@key{left}}, @kbd{@key{right}}, @kbd{C-b},
-@kbd{C-f} or mouse click under standard key binding.
+The default behavior is to reveal when the point enters the folded portion
+via one of the commands specified in @code{TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands}.
+@end defopt
+
+@defopt TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands
+This is a list of commands, consulted under the default behavior of
+@code{TeX-fold-auto-reveal}. By default, it consists of the commands
+@kbd{@key{left}}, @kbd{@key{right}}, @kbd{C-b}, @kbd{C-f} or mouse click
+under standard key binding.
@end defopt
diff --git a/preview.el.in b/preview.el.in
index 1f65f728..cdf79cc7 100644
--- a/preview.el.in
+++ b/preview.el.in
@@ -1635,9 +1635,18 @@ numbers (can be float if available)."
Fallback to :inherit and \\='default implemented."
:group 'preview-appearance)
+(defcustom preview-auto-reveal-commands
+ '((key-binding [left])
+(key-binding [right])
+backward-char
+forward-char)
+ "List of commands that may cause a preview to be revealed.
+This list is consulted by the default value of `preview-auto-reveal'."
+ :type '(repeat (choice (function :tag "Function")
+ (sexp :tag "Key binding"
+
(defcustom preview-auto-reveal
- '(eval (preview-arrived-via (key-binding [left]) (key-binding [right])
- #'backward-char #'forward-char))
+ '(eval (apply 'preview-arrived-via preview-auto-reveal-commands))
"Cause previews to open automatically when entered.
Possibilities are:
t autoopens,
diff --git a/tex-fold.el b/tex-fold.el
index 62f0834c..4f4ee377 100644
--- a/tex-fold.el
+++ b/tex-fold.el
@@ -257,10 +257,19 @@ After that, changing the prefix key requires manipulating keymaps."
(define-key map "i"#'TeX-fold-clearout-item)
map))
+(defcustom TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands
+ '((key-binding [left])
+(key-binding [right])
+backward-char
+forward-char
+mouse-set-point)
+ "List of commands that may cause a fold to be revealed.
+This list is consulted by the default value of `TeX-fold-auto-reveal'."
+ :type '(repeat (choice (function :tag "Function")
+ (sexp :tag "Key binding"
+
(defcustom TeX-fold-auto-reveal
- '(eval (TeX-fold-arrived-via (key-binding [left]) (key-binding [right])
- #'backward-char #'forward-char
- #'mouse-set-point))
+ '(eval (apply 'TeX-fold-arrived-via TeX-fold-auto-reveal-commands))
"Predicate to open a fold when entered.
Possibilities are:
t autoopens,
--
2.39.3 (Apple Git-145)
___
bug-auctex mailing list
bug-auctex@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
