Hi Jim, Jim <[email protected]> writes:
> The way I read that, in light of the knowledge about the standalone > package, is that the person who wrote the manual either didn't know > about that when they wrote it, or they didn't consider it. Or standalone wasn't there at the time as that portion of the manual was written (Remember that this is Emacs and we're old ;-) But that doesn't make a difference IMO, packages like standalone or subfiles[1] offer some non-standard, special purpose functionalities, and we try to support them within AUCTeX and/or RefTeX to some extent, but people shouldn't expect full support. > That is nothing *I* would disagree with, but I wonder what the people > who use standalone think. Maybe some standalone users chime in. > I note that in "info auctex", in the Multifile "Chapter" (5), it says > You should always set this variable to the name of the top level > document. > This may have been written without consideration of the standalone package. Again, I'd say that bit was written before the advent of standalone. > Maybe it is. I'm not trying to be argumentative (all appearances to the > contrary ;-), but I can imagine someone creating a TikZ diagram in a > standalone file (requiring multiple re-compiles), and when they are happy > with the diagram, wanting to compile the whole document. The person has to switch buffer and run C-c C-c there; that's the price to pay, I think. > If you are saying that > "*standalone* sub-file which uses TeX-master = the master file" > is an undefined / forbidden / uninteresting in the LaTeX world, I think this is what I mean, yes. > then that is great, because it means that I/we can define what that > configuration should mean in the ConTeXt world without worry about > breaking established, intentional behaviour in the LaTeX world. > > Equivalently (I think), the above says > "a preamble existing in this LaTeX file logically implies TeX-master = t" > > Also equivalently (I think), the above says > "TeX-master = t in a LaTeX file means we don't look for a preamble here". > > > Q: Are all those things equivalent *and* what you are saying? Sorry, I don't follow here. Can you please rephrase the above? TIA. Best, Arash Footnotes: [1] https://ctan.org/pkg/subfiles
