Hi Jim,
Jim <[email protected]> writes:
> 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 also doubt there is a large number of AUCTeX users out there, but
that's a different story.
> 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. >>
I like "unsupported configuration", sounds good to me.
> (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} >>
SGTM.
> 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 >>
SGTM.
> [[ 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 would expect that AUCTeX already has something to deal with the above,
but can't tell from top of my head.
Best, Arash
