Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I explained already why nothing else makes sense. AUCTeX makes >> extensive use of mode cookies in local variables, and those are only >> obeyed in the lowercase version. The choice of AUCTeX vs tex-mode is >> a user preference and should not be embedded into files. > > I of course understand why it would override them, but not why it > would set major-mode to `latex-mode' rather than to `LaTeX-mode'. > > In my opinion, LaTeX-mode is the AUCTeX major mode, while latex-mode > can be either, depending on the user's preference.
You are confusing the value of the major-mode variable with the invocation. The invocation "LaTeX-mode" installs latex-mode with AUCTeX keybindings, syntax tables, mode hooks and variables. >> I am still thinking about whether to keep the current scheme which >> has tex-mode as the main function and TeX-mode as an alias into it, >> or switch that around. > > I'll very much vote in favor of switching it around. Noted in case that my indecision is not resolved by other considerations. >> The problem with a switch is that "autoload" will not replace >> aliases, and so I can't replace the Emacs default scheme by just >> specifying new autoloads. > > Indeed, as shown in my sample auctex-override.el you just have to > explicitly fmakunbound them before setting up the autoload. No > biggie, tho. Except that it makes it harder to have unload-feature restore the state previous to the loading. In short, it seems to complicate achieving a clean switch between tex-mode.el and AUCTeX, but it seems like a somewhat more natural starting positiong when one indeed wants to employ both modes in a single session. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
