David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can you come up with a single _actual_ example where the current > behavior causes a problem? I mean, a given text file and a sequence > of keystrokes that does not lead to the desired result?
Suppose you want to compose " cell 1 & " " cell 2 & " " cell 3 & " " cell 4 & " to be yanked in tables. The blanks after '&' are desired, for formatting reasons. But when you try to type this line-by-line, each RET removes the blank. But you're right. It would be sufficient to use just " cell 1 &" " cell 2 &" " cell 3 &" " cell 4 & " and the result would be the same. I'll proceed like that. -- Uwe _______________________________________________ auctex mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex
