Hi Keita and Colin, Ikumi Keita <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>> Colin Baxter 😺 <[email protected]> writes: >>> I agree with your suggestion. Considering that \include and \input >>> have similar functionality and similar syntax, it's natural to >>> fontify them in the same way. > >> Please respect these differences. > > Do you have some particular reason that \include should stand out > visually unlike \input? The enumerated differences don't seem such > important to me so far. This is also my reasoning. I don't think that "\include clears the page" is such a strong argument that the macro itself should be fontified as a warning. Consider this trivial .tex file: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- \documentclass{book} \begin{document} \input{intro} \include{chap01} \include{chap02} \include{chap03} \include{chap04} \include{chap05} \appendix \include{appen01} \end{document} %%% Local Variables: %%% mode: latex %%% TeX-master: t %%% End: --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- The fontification doesn't seem right to me. As another example, how do we want to fontify \tableofcontents? Currently it has none, but besides that, it inserts a new page when issued with report or book class. I would be glad to hear from other users how they think about this, then we can make a final decision. Best, Arash
