Arne Jørgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skriver: > >> Seems like we have a communication problem. My proposal was to >> replace the currect calls to multi-prompt to a wrapper function call. >> This wrapper function is defined at load-time, depending on whether >> the crm functions are fboundp, to either use crm or multiprompt. In >> case multiprompt was used, appropriate autoloads would be defined. > > OK. Then I didn't understand you right. Sorry. > >> Something like >> >> (if (fboundp 'some-crm-function) >> (defun TeX-prompt-whatever (... (some-crm-function ...))) >> (autoload 'some-multiprompt-function 'multiprompt) >> (defun TeX-prompt-whatever (... (some-multiprompt-function ...)))) > > That's actually what I have at the moment. > > (if (fboundp 'completing-read-multiple) > (defalias 'TeX-completing-read-multiple 'completing-read-multiple) > (defun TeX-completing-read-multiple > (prompt table &optional predicate require-match initial-input > hist def inherit-input-method) > "Poor mans implementation of Emacs' `completing-read-multiple' for > XEmacs." > (require 'multi-prompt) > (multi-prompt "," nil prompt table predicate require-match initial-input > hist)))
Not quite the same. Don't use "require" in functions. It is a permanent performance hog when compared to calling an autoload, and it does not make the byte compiler happy. > I just dicovered a difference in `multi-prompt' and `crm'. If the > second argument of `multi-prompt' is non-nil the values you are > completing on are supposed to be unique and there is no way to > specify that in `completing-read-multiple' so we cannot replace the > two occurences of `multi-prompt' in latex.el with > `completing-read-multiple' without loosing that. What is the user-visible difference in behavior? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
