* David Kastrup (2005-05-14) writes: > Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> That's too drastic. My suggestion would be to include the file name >> in the prompt for the master file in case the buffer is not visible. > > I disagree, actually, as you can see by the code I placed in > tex-buf.el for error handling.
Which code? The one in <URL:http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/auctex/auctex/tex-buf.el.diff?r1=1.225&r2=1.226>? It would be nice if you were more specific. This way you could spare people some of their little time. > When a file gets loaded as part of > processing a run on a known master file, its TeX-master variable > should _silently_ get set to the known value (no local variable > section hacking done). How do you suppress processing the local variables specifications? AFAICS there is no way of telling `find-file-noselect' such a thing. It will call `after-find-file' with a nil value of the `nomodes' argument. > If the session already has different means to provide consistent > information for the currently loaded files, we should make use of > them. In case of the question for shared files I need a way to distinguish the file being opened by hand and programmatically in course of document processing. Functions opening files during processing could temporarily set a variable for the master file (named e.g. `TeX-transient-master' or `TeX-session-master') the presence of which will be tested in `TeX-master-file' and used for `TeX-master' if present. In the case of shared files being opened during a `preview-document' call, the function `preview-parse-messages' may open files programmatically. That means somewhere down the line from `preview-document' to that point a transient master would have to be set. > Of course, I have not actually announced this general strategy at all, > so I can hardly fault you for presenting a different strategy, one > that we previously agreed on. That's okay. I am always grateful if somebody suggests a solution more convenient or beneficial for the user. You are right that it would be foolish to prompt the user for information we can deduct from a processing session. -- Ralf _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
