Hi Arash,
Arash Esbati <[email protected]> wrote:
> thanks for your comment. I've heard that most people hacking on .dtx
> files simply turn off fontification as it might be too distracting.
Heh, that's a bit extreme. For .dtx files, I have in my config:
;; Set up less distracting colors for docTeX mode
(eval-after-load "tex-fold"
'(progn
;; Show enough text in tooltips for folded contents
(setq TeX-fold-help-echo-max-length 1000
TeX-fold-type-list '(comment)
TeX-fold-ellipsis "…")
;; My normal background color
(set-face-background 'TeX-fold-folded-face "#ededd1")
(set-face-background 'TeX-fold-unfolded-face "#ededd1")
(set-face-background 'font-latex-doctex-documentation-face "#ededd1")
;; Same color as for comments
(set-face-foreground 'TeX-fold-folded-face "Firebrick")
))
I find the result quite usable:
https://imgur.com/a/v5R1TNw
> I don't think it is a big deal to provide a custom variable, say,
> `font-latex-fontify-code-arguments' and then apply a conditional to the
> style files in the fontification section.
>
> What do others think? Any idea for a better variable name?
That would be a great improvement, IMHO. Of course, by “not fontifying
code arguments,” what I really mean is “fontify them as if they were not
macro arguments.” IOW, I'm happy with little things being fontified
inside the “replacement text” argument of a command. What I don't like
is when the whole code is forcibly colored in blue, which kills the
finer fontification one would have if the same code were outside a macro
argument. Example of what I like (my setup):
https://imgur.com/a/7ADVb5e
As you can see, the #1 and #2 inside the code arguments are not in the
same face as the rest of said arguments, and that's quite fine with me.
Thanks for your great work; AUCTeX is truly a very well maintained
project!
Regards
--
Florent
