On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 07:17:16PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > I agree with the comment that plain TeX users may also define such > > sectioning commands. Maybe it would be safe if you check for such > > definitions, using an include-file search ... but of course, that is > > more convenient after ftplugin/plaintex.vim has been :source'd. > > I'm not really fond of plain TeX, but I think it is not really > widespread to \input slices of plain TeX. So the idea mentioned in > this thread was to implement the policy: "if a document starts with a > lot of blanks followed by one of the possible LaTeX sectioning > commands, then it is (probably) a LaTeX source file". What do you > think of this policy?
I actually like this policy a lot. Most people who break latex files up into tonnes and tonnes of little files, do so based on sections. Odds are, that the little files will begin with a bunch of comments, and a sectioning command. It would make life easier if this made it into filetype.vim. Especially because changing g:tex_flavor means that every time I edit a plain tex file, I need to unlet this variable. GI -- 'Common' Proof Techniques: 13. Proof by wishful citation -- The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a theorem from the literature to support his claims.
