Mosè Giordano <[email protected]> writes: >>> After some testing I'm not persuaded it's a good idea to remove >>> `TeX-math-close-double-dollar'. E.g., a plain TeX user probably want >>> to set `TeX-electric-inline-math' to '("$" . "$"), but if point is >>> after the third dollar in the following line >>> $$ a+b=c $ >>> pressing another time `$' will insert a couple of dollars because >>> there (texmathp) returns nil. This isn't the expected behavior and >>> `TeX-math-close-double-dollar' does a better job. >> >> If he uses `TeX-electric-inline-math', how could he reach that >> 3-dollars state except with `C-q $'? > No need of `C-q $' at all. This is the `C-h l' log of the keystrokes > needed to write that: > $ <right> SPC a + b = c SPC $ > `(texmathp)' returns t before the third dollar and a single dollar is > inserted when `TeX-math-close-double-dollar' is nil, a couple of > dollars otherwise.
Well, after typing the initial dollar above, the inserted text with | being (point) is $|$. Why should a user prefer to type <right> or C-f to jump over the second $ instead of quickly typing $$ resulting in $$|$$? I mean, the alternatives are 1. $ <right> formula $ 2. $$ formula and the first takes 3 special key presses of 2 different keys whereas the second only takes 2 $-key presses. So IMHO, the first approach seems even worse than typing $$ formula $$ without electricity. Ok, one benefit of alternative 1 is that point is after the math afterwards whereas it is $$|$$ in alternative 2. But then, such formulas are usually written on their own line, so that doesn't make a difference. > Can I keep `TeX-math-close-double-dollar'? I don't have strong opinions, I just don't like having several quite similar features that might confuse more than help. But if you feel that it's important, then we'll just keep it. Bye, Tassilo _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
