Hi Keita, Ikumi Keita <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>> Arash Esbati <[email protected]> writes: > > Hm, my preference is to support both versions. From my experience, it's > not rare that people use TeX Live installation a few years old. For most > users, the aim to have TeX distribution is to write documents, > especially with math formulae, so they generally don't consider it much > important to keep up with the latest TeX Live in my opinion. It seems we have the first user complaining :-) https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/629509/76063 >> Does the above make sense? > > Yes, of course. :-) I don't object strongly against your plan. Sounds good :-) I see that currently we don't parse the second optional date argument after the package name. This is what latex.el does: (defvar LaTeX-auto-minimal-regexp-list '(("\\\\document\\(style\\|class\\)\ \\(\\[\\(\\([^#\\%]\\|%[^\n\r]*[\n\r]\\)*\\)\\]\\)?\ {\\([^#\\.\n\r]+?\\)}" (3 5 1) LaTeX-auto-style) ("\\\\use\\(package\\)\\(\\[\\([^]]*\\)\\]\\)?\ {\\(\\([^#}\\.%]\\|%[^\n\r]*[\n\r]\\)+?\\)}" (3 4 1) LaTeX-auto-style)) "Minimal list of regular expressions matching LaTeX macro definitions.") Hence we have to patch some inner parts. Am I missing something? Best, Arash
