Tassilo Horn writes:
>>> Is `TeX-command-run-all' an option? Rational: `TeX-command-list'
>>> mostly uses `run'. +1 for C-c C-a.
>>
>> Uhm, good point but I really don't know which option to choose: for
>> me `TeX-command-compile-all' and `TeX-command-run-all' are equally
>> good.
So now I've
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, simplify-TeX-parse-error has been updated
via 6f0534769e1e468479a785b595e470362cb2b8a1 (commit)
via
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, master has been updated
via c3cb0ff1f6dc2f699b119b8bdc08ec782399b919 (commit)
from 76eb2406560514166
Mosè Giordano writes:
I'm not sure which name is best, though. `TeX-command-all' has the nice
property that then all processing commands have the TeX-command prefix.
So maybe `TeX-command-compile-all' would be best compromise
wrt. discoverability, descriptiveness, and mnemoni
Hi Arash,
2015-09-03 22:27 GMT+02:00 Arash Esbati :
> Mosè Giordano writes:
>
>> 2015-09-02 7:58 GMT+02:00 Tassilo Horn :
>>>
>>> I'm not sure which name is best, though. `TeX-command-all' has the nice
>>> property that then all processing commands have the TeX-command prefix.
>>> So maybe `TeX-
Mosè Giordano writes:
> 2015-09-02 7:58 GMT+02:00 Tassilo Horn :
>>
>> I'm not sure which name is best, though. `TeX-command-all' has the nice
>> property that then all processing commands have the TeX-command prefix.
>> So maybe `TeX-command-compile-all' would be best compromise
>> wrt. discove
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, simplify-TeX-parse-error has been updated
via 6a5107a556dfd45cc688180aea3b61caeb1570ea (commit)
via
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, master has been updated
via 76eb24065605141665a8311c2c9f27c6e77e3644 (commit)
from 57338ec5c37b84d34
Uwe Brauer writes:
> to clarify: I could download the latest checkin via
> git clone http://git.savannah.gnu.org/r/auctex.git
>
> (I made a mistake in my last message) but
> git pull
> gives an error I reported.
Sorry, never had such an error. Did you somehow mess with the .git/
directory?
David Kastrup writes:
>>> I strongly recommend to include the code in Auctex, maybe with a
>>> additional variable, something like this
>>
>> It's far from perfect. For example, if you have some spurious ^ or _
>> somewhere in your text (not in some math) you won't see it at all.
>> And AUCTeX's
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, simplify-TeX-parse-error has been updated
via 7cda7abf94628631c1dc6db9f5674dbaaf27120d (commit)
via
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, master has been updated
via 57338ec5c37b84d3407f6068274662c6258780f2 (commit)
from 08ab3c10d51f0956e
Uwe Brauer writes:
> On 09/03/2015 11:49 AM, Tassilo Horn wrote:
>
>
> Uwe Brauer writes:
>
>> I strongly recommend to include the code in Auctex, maybe with a
>> additional variable, something like this
>
> It's far from perfect. For example, if you have some spurious ^ or _
> somewhere in yo
On 09/03/2015 11:49 AM, Tassilo Horn
wrote:
Uwe Brauer writes:
> I strongly recommend to include the code in Auctex, maybe with a
> additional variable, something like this
It's far from perfect. For example, if you have some spurious ^ or _
somewhere in your te
On 09/03/2015 11:49 AM, Tassilo Horn
wrote:
Uwe Brauer writes:
> I strongly recommend to include the code in Auctex, maybe with a
> additional variable, something like this
It's far from perfect. For example, if you have some spurious ^ or _
somewhere in your te
Uwe Brauer writes:
> I strongly recommend to include the code in Auctex, maybe with a
> additional variable, something like this
It's far from perfect. For example, if you have some spurious ^ or _
somewhere in your text (not in some math) you won't see it at all. And
AUCTeX's font-latex does
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, master has been updated
via 08ab3c10d51f0956e8faca2c85f5e0d38bee4303 (commit)
from 513490f7b15fbc467
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, simplify-TeX-parse-error has been updated
via 334247756d898a0503b11dd36c5d81d33bb13973 (commit)
via
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, master has been updated
via 513490f7b15fbc4676c706e3968eba9768d0194c (commit)
from dd9adef7b2fee77fa
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU AUCTeX".
The branch, simplify-TeX-parse-error has been updated
via 4641da3f2d56eefd42436c6e72b147f64c99 (commit)
via
> Stefan Monnier writes:
> I guess what Uwe wants is that `prettify-symbols-mode' in a (La)TeX
> buffer (with stock latex-mode or AUCTeX; doesn't really matter) could
> have the option to make the ^ and _ invisible, too.
> I already told him that this is not what p-s-m is meant f
21 matches
Mail list logo
