* David Kastrup (2006-01-14) writes: > Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> * David Kastrup (2006-01-13) writes: >> >>> Didn't we actually fix this particular one yet? Hmm. Seemingly not. >>> A sort of "least invasive" change would be: >> [...] >>> -)+\\( \\|\r?$\\)\\|\ >>> +)+\\([ >]\\|\r?$\\)\\|\ >> [...] >>> Butt-ugly. What we probably should do instead is to keep a list of >>> every (xxx combination and every ) in any context, and then whenever >>> we actually match with source lines, we try to figure out which of the >>> ( and ) actually made sense. Yes, this does not sound like too much >>> fun. >> >> I'd rather poke myself with a stick in the eye. > > Ah, but the overall goal is not to maximize your private level of > happiness.
Yeah, but mine is. Now please hand me a stick. >> I saw that you already checked in the change. If it is working like >> that, i.e. with a general solution, we could just keep it. > > "With a general solution"? What's that supposed to mean? That's how I understood your change in preview.el. Doesn't it prevent preview-latex from choking on "(PNG copy)"? (As I've mentioned before, I cannot check it.) >>> Which reminds me: we should have the error/line style error messages >>> work out as well. >> >> "as well" like in "_both_ file/line/error _and_ normal messages >> should work"? > > Have you taken a look at file/line error messages? They don't replace > the standard messages but sneak in an _additional_ line. We just need > to make our error message patterns skip this additional line. Ah, now I got it. Besides the stick you may hand me a pair of scissors for shortening my long line. (You need me not to say that the outprint "a long line to have" not in English exists.) -- Ralf _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
