David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Arne Jørgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The inferior and carelessly modeled solution is `multi-prompt' I
>> think. I already have a implementation that does that
>> (http://arnested.dk/filer/usepackage.patch).
>
>> Now. What road to choose? I tend to prefer the solution with
>> multi-prompt because we don't have to double stuff. The inferior
>> usability of multi-prompt should be nagging enough (Ralf).
>>
>> On the other hand since multi-prompt is part of AUCTeX choosing the
>> other solution we could eliminate multi-prompt and only have the
>> superior functionality of crm/tex-crm?
>
> I think other parts of AUCTeX rely on multiprompt, and there might be
> some third-party packages as well.
A grep reveals only two places in latex.el.
> I'd prefer to keep multiprompt in the distribution, I think, though we
> might add a warning that it might be removed at a later point of time.
>
> Is the crm functionally a superset of multiprompt? If it is, we could
> try to make wrapper functions that map to crm when available, and use
> multiprompt if not.
It looks as if multi-prompt and crm are trying to solve the same
problem. And crm in a far superior way.
It should be quite simple to replace multi-prompt with a wrapper
function that calls crm.
We would still need to solve the XEmacs case, though.
> It would seem to make sense to use either multiprompt or crm
> consistently, the way it sounds, but I think it is ok to make the
> decision at load time.
I prefer crm over multi-prompt any time.
Kind regards,
/arne
--
Arne Jørgensen <http://arnested.dk/>
_______________________________________________
auctex-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
