* David Kastrup (2006-02-07) writes: >>> 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.
Using a string looked less perverted to me than using a list. Problem is that we are introducing a dependency between items in `TeX-command-list'. All the "old" functions which can be specified at the third position of a command list item expect a string. Allowing a list instead of a string at the second position of a command list item without looking at what function is used at the third position looks problematic to me. >> And because that way we don't have to insert a choice in the >> defcustom for `TeX-command-list'. > > Is it really worth that? Apart from the concerns mentioned above, `TeX-command-list' is already _very_ crowded. I'd like to avoid more confusing options if possible. I already thought about changing it to a defvar and advising users to generally use `add-to-list' for augmenting the variable. I know my approach looks peculiar but I still think it's less problematic than the alternative. -- Ralf _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
