[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#336400: emacs-goodies-el: please add xdvi-search.el



I really don't remember if I replied to this message or not, but since
now I have a little spare time (grading the finals is finally over and I
can study some things). :-)

On Nov 03 2005, Stefan Ulrich wrote:
> Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch> writes:
> > I'd also like to hear from the xdvik people what the file is meant for
> > (Emacs' built in TeX mode?  Older AUCTeX versions?), and what they think
> > about integration in AUCTeX/Emacs Goodies/Whatever.
> 
> Thanks for CCing me on this - I didn't know that AUCTeX had support
> for inverse search with xdvi.

Oops. I don't know if AUCTeX really has support for inverse search (I
will have to check the manual).

What I meant is that, with AUCTeX, you can (easily) enable source
specials and, with your xdvi-search.el, this means that Emacs can use
easily the forward/backward search with xdvi(k).

BTW, I'm using Debian's "emacs-snapshot" (taken from unstable/what will
become Emacs 22) and your xdvi-search.el works quite well with this (and
I don't have the need to install extra things like "gnuserv"---the
builtin server and client work much better than before, in my
experience, and that makes Emacs+xdvi(k) a great environment for TeXing
documents).

IMVHO, this is an extra reason to have xdvi-search.el available.

> If it does now, it probably doesn't make sense to maintain a separate
> package like xdvi-search.el any more. I would probably keep the
> version on http://xdvi.sourceforge.net/xdvi-search.el for reference
> only and update the xdvi documentation to point to AUCTeX instead.

Please, see the comments above. I think that now it matters much more
than earlier to have xdvi-search.el available.


Thanks, Rogério Brito.

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@ime.usp.br : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat:  http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/



Reply to: