Hi Tassilo,
2014-02-20 8:40 GMT+01:00 Tassilo Horn <[email protected]>:
> BTW, the name suggests that I can enter many packages. Is that correct?
> Or is that all due to the special case of
>
> \usepackage[options]{pkg1,pkg2,pkg3}
Yes, it's that special case. I don't believe there are many packages
sharing the same options, but it's possible in principle, I verified
it with handcrafted packages.
> If so, I'd rather prefer to read just one package with it's options, so
> that I'd end up with
>
> \usepackage[options]{pkg1}
> \usepackage[options]{pkg2}
> \usepackage[options]{pkg3}
>
> and name the function accordingly, i.e., "package" (singular), when used
> repeatedly.
> Or it could allow entering multiple packages as it is now, but each
> package with its own options. And then it would return an alist
> structurally equal to `LaTeX-provided-package-options'.
I'm not sure I understood what you mean. In the patch,
`LaTeX-arg-usepackage-get-packages-options' (or its new name) prompts
for a list of packages (one or more) and their options, so
`\usepackage' is inserted as
\usepackage[options]{pkg1,pkg2,pkg3}
You are suggesting to prompt for packages, and if one supplies more
than one package s/he will be asked for options for each package,
separately, so they'll be inserted as you showed above, is it correct?
In this case, I think that if one wants to load different packages
with different options s/he should call `LaTeX-arg-usepackage' (ie,
`C-c RET usepackage RET') many times, or use the new
`LaTeX-insert-usepackages' which makes insertion of many
`\usepackage's easy. That's because I often load many packages with a
single `\usepackage' if no option is needed and I think it's a quite
common practice, so I like that packages are read with
`TeX-completing-read-multiple'.
Bye,
Mosè
_______________________________________________
auctex-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
