> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Richard Stallman wrote:
>> Have you reported this problem to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> No, I haven't done.
> Please send a clear and specific bug report
> with a test case, so they can work on this.
I'll do that tomorrow. Thanks.
___
> Have you reported this problem to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, I haven't done.
Please send a clear and specific bug report
with a test case, so they can work on this.
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/lis
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Richard Stallman wrote:
>> We should modify `makeinfo' to handle Japanese Texinfo, if need be.
>> `makeinfo' is faster and `texinfmt.el' was deprecated a long time ago.
> It is just what I am hoping!
> Have you reported this problem to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, I ha
Should we move it lisp/obsolete?
Apparently it is still useful for something, so I guess not.
At least not now.
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
> We should modify `makeinfo' to handle Japanese Texinfo, if need be.
> `makeinfo' is faster and `texinfmt.el' was deprecated a long time ago.
It is just what I am hoping!
Have you reported this problem to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would you like to work on code for Makeinfo to do this?
___
> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:32:31 +0900
> From: Katsumi Yamaoka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> > There's already such a means: the @documentencoding directive. What
> > is missing is support for multibyte encodings.
>
> I already tried it and failed. The li
> I see, and I will have to keep in mind that there might still be
> need to fix the [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]' problem.
I'd rather not have us fix a problem by reintroducing another
problem that we fixed in the past. Isn't there another way to
solve both of them at
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> I see, and I will have to keep in mind that there might still be
>> need to fix the [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]' problem.
> I'd rather not have us fix a problem by reintroducing another problem
> that we fixed in the past. Isn't there
> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:57:07 +0900
> From: Katsumi Yamaoka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> > ... I don't think this fix should be used as is.
>
> > Evidentally, back in November 2001, a user in FSF India could not
> > format the then new edition of `emacs-lisp-intro.tex
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> I have commented out that inclusion and committed the change.
> So `texinfo-format-buffer' should work again as you expect.
Thank you very much for that. It works fine now.
> As I wrote at the time I included it
> ... I don't think t
>>>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> In some cases, `texinfo-format-buffer' doesn't fold long lines.
>> texinfo-format-buffer is more or less obsolete; you should use
>> makeinfo instead.
> Should we move it lisp/obso
> In some cases, `texinfo-format-buffer' doesn't fold long lines.
> texinfo-format-buffer is more or less obsolete; you should use
> makeinfo instead.
Should we move it lisp/obsolete?
Stefan
___
Emacs-devel maili
In some cases, `texinfo-format-buffer' doesn't fold long lines.
texinfo-format-buffer is more or less obsolete; you should use
makeinfo instead.
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
Katsumi Yamaoka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
In some cases, `texinfo-format-buffer' doesn't fold long lines.
... It happens because someone added "itemize\\|" to
`texinfo-no-refill-regexp' as follows:
(defvar texinfo-no-refill-regexp
Yes, the inclusion
Hi,
In some cases, `texinfo-format-buffer' doesn't fold long lines.
For example, try the following and you can see how it does.
;--8<---cut here---start->8---
(with-temp-buffer
(insert "@setfilename testing
@node Top
@itemize @bullet
@
15 matches
Mail list logo
