Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why do we desperately need a special alias just in exactly that > case where it really is likely to cause problems? > > The idea that it "causes problems" is based on a mistaken idea of > how things ought to work. ALL the usual ways of invoking a mode for > TeX should be defined by both AUCTeX and tex-mode.el. It woulod be > a bug if they were different. > > Again: do you have knowledge of even a single instance where > this alias has been used, promoted, or found convenient for or > by as much as a single person? > > If these names are not really used by users, maybe we could these > names in both AUCTeX and tex-mode.el.
Well, people use LaTeX-mode and TeX-mode quite a bit when intending to call AUCTeX explicitly, so I would not want to give those bindings up. If I can get a _definite_ promise that tex-mode's aliases on TeX-mode and LaTeX-mode will stay in place (as long as the AUCTeX maintainer of the day is throwing a tantrum when necessary to remind people), then I would be fine with letting AUCTeX merely overload tex-mode, latex-mode and plain-tex-mode and not touching the aliases (which makes unloading cleaner as that does not then automatically and inappropriately undefine aliases unnecessarily duplicated by AUCTeX). May I build a scheme around that assumption? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
