Hi Al, > What's the best practice here about updating patches? Should I send an > updated full patch or a new one on top of the current one?
I think sending a full patch is the custom. >> It would be much more ergonomic if we could enable preview-point after >> visiting a buffer. Is this a hard limitation? > No, I can make this change. It would simply require modifying a couple > of hooks. Should the logic be in a custom-setter code, or in a > function/mode? Note that the setting has to be global (at least in the > current implementation -- though I might be able to make it buffer-local > if there's a real need for it). I guess we could go with either of the following: (A) A defcustom with custom setters that both determines whether the feature is enabled and how the feature is displayed. (B) A minor-mode (ideally buffer-local), say preview-point-mode [1], that determines whether the feature is enabled at all, together with a defcustom preview-point [2] that determines how the feature displays. Based on what you wrote elsewhere regarding the intent of the defcustom: > Just to say, the purpose of this command is to provide an easy way to > hide/show previews, for example if they are getting in the way of > editing text. I wasn't thinking about it as a way to enable > preview-point. I am open to suggestions of improvement to this > interface. I think (B) makes more sense. [1] or maybe preview-at-point-mode? [2] or maybe preview-point-display, preview-point-display-type, preview-point-type, preview-at-point-type, etc? > I had actually wanted to ask you if the introduction of > `preview-point-auto-p` could be a clean way to incorporate the logic of > `preview-auto`, since I think one can have the clever code in > preview-auto which detects if a preview should be generated as a > customization of this variable. > > My thinking is to have automatic previewing split into two logical > parts: The mechanism of updating previews which should be general > enough, and the detection of when to do it which will be > user-controlled. That sounds good to me. I'll take a careful look once you've sent the revised patch. Thanks, best, Paul _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
