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

Re: font-lock, xemacs, latex

Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:

> Giulio Morgan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 10:06:49AM -0500, Giulio Morgan wrote:
> > 
> > > At some point during upgrades, I have lost font-locking capability
> > > for LaTeX
> >                        Further investigation led me to add
> >   (if window-system
> >        (require 'font-latex))
> > to my .emacs, and this seems to have solved the problem. 
> Right.  This is documented in font-latex.el itself.
> >                                                          I
> > don't know why this was necessary, I imagine it may be from
> > trying to run both xemacs and fsf emacs.
> I don't think so.  They are both identical (and both a bit
> outdated).
> font-latex.el is a contributed file to auc-tex, and so auc-tex's
> setup doesn't enable it by default.  I suppose it should be
> better documented, and perhaps added to future versions of
> tex-site.el (auc-tex's setup file) as a customizable item.
> Would this have helped?  I figure 95% of users never go into the
> Customize menu...
> For the Debian auctex package, the current debconf support could
> be supplemented to ask the user if font-latex and bib-cite should
> be turned-on.
> -- 
> Peter Galbraith, research scientist          <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>

Thanks for your reply. as I mentioned previously, I believe font-locking in
latex in xemacs was enabled by default, because I believe I used to see that
behaviour without specifically requiring font-latex, or without doing anything
with Customization menus. Don't know if it's necessary to add to menu.

Generally, is it discouraged to use both emacs and xemacs as the same user on
the same machine? emacs from console or from remote (ssh) connection, otherwise
xemacs. Also, one more question, is it discouraged to use xemacs "internal"
package management functions? does this conflict with apt? what is the
recommended approach. Thanks,

Giulio Morgan

Reply to: