Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * David Kastrup (2006-02-07) writes: > >> Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> (TeX-command-list): Use `TeX-run-function' instead of >>> `TeX-run-ispell-on-document' for "Spell" option. Remove >>> `TeX-run-ispell-on-document' as option for the third element of an >>> item. >>> (TeX-ispell-document): Move here from tex-buf.el. >> >> Things like "TeX-run-ispell-on-document" should be kept as aliases for >> the sake of older customizations. > > An alias doesn't make much sense because `TeX-run-function' does > something completely different.
Oops. > If you are concerned about people who customized `TeX-command-list' > and therefore have a `TeX-run-ispell-on-document' entry, we'd have > to keep the whole function definition. Hmmm, I guess users with > customized `TeX-command-list' variables will probably prefer to miss > functionality in contrast to getting an error, so I'll put the > definition back in. Sounds sensible. >> Anyway, why use a string here as argument for TeX-run-function? Seems >> ugly, when actually a list is used. > > Because it's pumped through `TeX-command-expand'. By using a string > we don't have to check for the variable's type in `TeX-command'. I am not really convinced that is a good reason... Engaging the Lisp reader for normal operation seems awkward. > And because that way we don't have to insert a choice in the > defcustom for `TeX-command-list'. Is it really worth that? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
