Hi Arash,
>
> what about users who use folding only and not symbol-prettification?
> There is a feature overlap here, but I'm not sure if we should drop your
> changes from folding. Maybe we should guard these overlaps so they
> don't kick in when `prettify-symbols-mode' is non-nil? WDYT?
>
From what I can tell, we don't need to worry about overlaps, which
already happens with stuff like "\alpha" that is in both
tex--prettify-symbols-alist and LaTeX-fold-math-spec-list.
The pros/cons of the quote/dash folding code, as I see it:
(1) Users who use prettification can simply add
(dolist (sym '(("``" . ?“) ("''" . ?”)))
(add-to-list 'tex--prettify-symbols-alist sym))
to their config (or submit a patch to tex-mode), while those who don't
use prettification can turn it on anyway and do
(setq prettify-symbols-alist '(("``" . ?“) ("''" . ?”) ("--" . 8211)
("---" . 8212)))
(2) With the folding approach, users can control it via TeX-fold-*
along with all the other folding.
My overall feeling is that the quote/dash folding code isn't really
necessary (and expands the code base, docs and defcustoms), so might
as well be removed, but I won't complain if you or others see the
balance differently.
Thanks, best,
Paul
_______________________________________________
bug-auctex mailing list
bug-auctex@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
