Hi Arash, On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 16:25 (+0200), Arash Esbati wrote:
> Jim <[email protected]> writes: >> The way I read that, in light of the knowledge about the standalone >> package, is that the person who wrote the manual either didn't know >> about that when they wrote it, or they didn't consider it. > Or standalone wasn't there at the time as that portion of the manual was > written (Remember that this is Emacs and we're old ;-) But that doesn't > make a difference IMO, packages like standalone or subfiles[1] offer > some non-standard, special purpose functionalities, and we try to > support them within AUCTeX and/or RefTeX to some extent, but people > shouldn't expect full support. >> That is nothing *I* would disagree with, but I wonder what the people >> who use standalone think. > Maybe some standalone users chime in. So far, they have been silent. But I doubt the number of "users" who read this list is large compared to the total number of users. >> I note that in "info auctex", in the Multifile "Chapter" (5), it says >> You should always set this variable to the name of the top level >> document. >> This may have been written without consideration of the standalone package. > Again, I'd say that bit was written before the advent of standalone. Quite likely. >> Maybe it is. I'm not trying to be argumentative (all appearances to the >> contrary ;-), but I can imagine someone creating a TikZ diagram in a >> standalone file (requiring multiple re-compiles), and when they are happy >> with the diagram, wanting to compile the whole document. > The person has to switch buffer and run C-c C-c there; that's the price > to pay, I think. OK, that is fine with me. >> If you are saying that >> "*standalone* sub-file which uses TeX-master = the master file" >> is an undefined / forbidden / uninteresting in the LaTeX world, > I think this is what I mean, yes. >> then that is great, because it means that I/we can define what that >> configuration should mean in the ConTeXt world without worry about >> breaking established, intentional behaviour in the LaTeX world. >> Equivalently (I think), the above says >> "a preamble existing in this LaTeX file logically implies TeX-master = t" >> Also equivalently (I think), the above says >> "TeX-master = t in a LaTeX file means we don't look for a preamble here". >> Q: Are all those things equivalent *and* what you are saying? > Sorry, I don't follow here. Can you please rephrase the above? TIA. I meant that are all of these equivalent in your opinion (just in case it makes fixing things up for ConTeXt easier): (a) "*standalone* sub-file which uses TeX-master = the master file" is undefined / forbidden / uninteresting in the LaTeX world << I should have said "unsupported configuration" when I wrote that, but the expression escaped me at the time. >> (b) "a preamble existing in this LaTeX file logically implies TeX-master = t" << "this LaTeX file" meaning the file you are editing when you type C-c C-{c,r,b} >> Replace the third one with what I should have typed: (c) "TeX-master = <some master file> in a LaTeX file logically implies there is no preamble here" << i.e., AUCTeX doesn't need to look for a preamble in the LaTeX file we are editing when we type C-c C-{c,r,b} if TeX-master is set to a master file >> [[ Aside: With (b) and (c) I attempt to represent the two ways of taking TeX-master and the existence of a preamble into account: (b) -> check the current file being edited has a preamble, and preamble here -> use it no preamble here -> only then see if TeX-master = <master file> and if so look there. (c) -> check TeX-master's value: <master file> -> look there, **don't even bother looking here** t -> look for a preamble here ]] I'm not sure my rephrasing is helpful. It seems rather long. Jim
