> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2025 at 10:05 AM > From: "Arash Esbati" <ar...@gnu.org> > To: auctex-devel@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Improving LaTeX3 support in style/expl3.el > > Hi Florent, > > Florent Rougon <f.rou...@free.fr> writes: > > > I don't have time for AUCTeX hacking unfortunately, > > Too bad, of course ;-) > > > but am happy to answer questions on expl3 if you need and if I know > > the answers. :-) > > Thanks, may be I come back to that, but I'd like to get some feedback > from people who actually use the expl3.el style. I'm not sure if > developers always make the right decisions about usability, especially > when they don't use the code they write.
Have used expl3 coding. One thing is that expl3 style files allow use of underscore, but latex mode treats them an subscripts. expl3 developers do not want latex-mode to activate the subscript notation where commands following the underscore automatically get a smaller font. > > My main criterion for being happy with fontification of TeX/LaTeX code > > is not to have everything colorized. I remember that at some point > > (probably about 5 years ago), I spent some time changing my startup file > > to avoid having the body of macros in (IIRC) all mostly blue, or blue > > and purple (the body was the argument of \newcommand or similar, hence > > its fontification). > > > > The screenshot you posted didn't have any comparable “defect”, so looks > > fine to me. > > I agree, "angry fruit salad" is bad when you're coding. I think > AUCTeX's fontification might be OK when writing ordinary .tex files, but > when writing .dtx, less is more. That was also my thinking. > > Best, Arash > >
