Franz Haeuslschmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Franz Haeuslschmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > >>> Could you please provide a sample TeX-document that actually >>> causes the grief? Did you consider to deactivate personal >>> configurations by calling XEmacs with parameters `-q >>> -no-site-file'? (I didn't take care of that at first.) According >>> to message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you no longer >>> need to explicitly load AUCTeX (BTW: this could be updated in the >>> FAQ). >> >> Uh what? I say no such thing! Requiring tex-site is no longer the >> recommended way to activate AUCTeX, true, but instead you need to load >> auctex.el. > > This thread covers a problem with AUCTeX running under > _XEmacs_. I have learnt that one no longer needs to explicitly > load AUCTeX within XEmacs. The message I referred to even > contains an excerpt from the info documentation of AUCTeX, which > states that "AUCTeX and preview-latex should now be active by > default". If I had written about (X)Emacs, my explanation would > have been imprecise -- I guess -- but for XEmacs, it is still > valid, isn't it?
Yes and no. AUCTeX never provided a package setup for XEmacs previously, so it would be misleading to say that anything has changed. How and whether you need to specifically activate AUCTeX in XEmacs has always been at the discretion of the XEmacs packagers. We will provide much more of a framework with AUCTeX 11.80, but whether this gets picked up by the people actually wrapping up an XEmacs package, will remain to be seen. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex
