Hi Keita, Ikumi Keita <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>> Arash Esbati <[email protected]> writes: >> What do others think, do we need such a general test? > > It would be good to have tests considering that syntax propertization > affects syntax-aware functions. Thanks for your response. >> And if yes, which cases should be included? > > How about adding these? > - verbatim environment > - equation environment > - \(\), \[\] pairs > - \emph{...} > - font specification such as \textbf{...} \mathrm{...} {\bfseries ...} > {\ttfamily ...} > >> + (LaTeX-mode) >> + (insert "\ >> +\\documentclass{article} >> +\\begin{document} >> +Inline verbatim test: \\verb|x| >> +Inline math test: $x$ >> +Marginpar test: \\marginpar{x} >> +\\end{document} >> + >> +%%% Local Variables: >> +%%% mode: latex >> +%%% TeX-master: t >> +%%% End:\n") > > I think that `(LaTeX-mode)' should come after insertion of buffer > contents because otherwise Local Variables section isn't analysed and > would be confusing when debugging after other local variables are added. OK, I moved that form after insert'ing the code. >> + ;; Test for inline verb: >> + (search-forward-regexp "\\\\verb|") > > It would be enough to use `search-forward' since we know the literal > contents. Yes, true. I also has something like this in my first attempt (search-forward-regexp "\\\\document\\(?1:c\\)lass\\[") and hence stayed with regexp. >> + (should (memq 'font-lock-constant-face >> + (get-text-property (match-end 0) 'face))) > > Maybe `font-latex-faces-present-p' makes the code a bit simpler. Ah, many thanks for this one. I was literally about to re-invent the wheel! I pushed a change to our repo. Please feel free to have a look and tell me if think more stuff is missing. I think the idea can be expanded also for LaTeX packages and their corresponding AUCTeX styles. Best, Arash
