From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 23 05:44:42 2017 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2017 09:44:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56619 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6ZHl-0002gH-Kz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:44:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51228) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6ZHj-0002fr-Ec for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:44:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6ZHd-0005Bm-H2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:44:34 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:49585) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6ZHd-0005BJ-Df for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:44:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42172) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6ZHc-0000Zq-C1 for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:44:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6ZHZ-00054u-9U for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:44:32 -0400 Received: from smtp01.univ-lille1.fr ([2001:660:4401:100::19]:55000) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6ZHY-00052p-Vd for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:44:29 -0400 Received: from smtps1.univ-lille1.fr (smtps1.univ-lille1.fr [193.49.225.52]) by smtp01.univ-lille1.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id v9N9BUeY021317 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:11:30 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.11] (hel59-4-88-160-125-12.fbx.proxad.net [88.160.125.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtps1.univ-lille1.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id v9N9BTrd006663 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:11:31 +0200 From: jfbu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors Message-Id: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:11:28 +0200 To: bug-auctex@gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-USTL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-USTL-MailScanner-ID: v9N9BUeY021317 X-USTL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-USTL-MailScanner-From: jfbu@free.fr X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Hi, here is minimal example: \documentclass{article} \begin{document} \typeout{Hello:1: } \end{document} This triggers AUCTeX log parser to report wrongly that there were compilation errors. The two colons and the space conspire to this result. It happened in real life example. Best, Jean-Fran=E7ois From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 23 08:43:32 2017 Received: (at 28953) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2017 12:43:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56692 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6c4q-0000dI-Ij for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:43:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58928) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6c4n-0000d1-Dt for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:43:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6c4d-0002P5-Ee for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:43:24 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55749) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6c4d-0002Ox-Bp for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:43:19 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]:55920) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1e6c4c-0006Sv-UN for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:43:19 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p186so19899776ioe.12 for <28953@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:43:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVeWTcHJF9IfhP8hu+69ws3XtMCRq9B+c3YKL+eoGfW12JR1R8/ 9KM25qgmwbclS5B04cQInCyM8v6Sm59Sjpm3OxM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Sg/B/m5WtOH6NAVjEbZ2dzCaf8O0mcMuI0me2lzh8rd1O2DAMH3/BCcrpphDnaVg21G7SeKYr6FpEApPvk48o= X-Received: by 10.107.164.164 with SMTP id d36mr17758917ioj.64.1508762598131; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:43:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.2.3.29 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:42:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mos=C3=A8_Giordano?= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:42:37 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors To: jfbu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28953 Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) Hi Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois, 2017-10-23 11:11 GMT+02:00 jfbu : > Hi, here is minimal example: > > \documentclass{article} > \begin{document} > \typeout{Hello:1: } > \end{document} > > This triggers AUCTeX log parser to report wrongly > that there were compilation errors. > > The two colons and the space conspire to this result. > > It happened in real life example. I think you're asking too much :-) I don't see any meaningful way to distinguish between a real error and a message you write to the log that is exactly equal to the file-line-error style. The same happens with \typeout{! hello world}. Bye, Mos=C3=A8 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 23 08:47:36 2017 Received: (at 28953) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2017 12:47:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56696 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6c8m-0000jn-2e for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:47:36 -0400 Received: from smtp01.univ-lille1.fr ([193.49.225.19]:58082) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6c8k-0000ja-Gr for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:47:35 -0400 Received: from smtps1.univ-lille1.fr (smtps1.univ-lille1.fr [193.49.225.52]) by smtp01.univ-lille1.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id v9NClR3U006247; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:47:27 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.11] (hel59-4-88-160-125-12.fbx.proxad.net [88.160.125.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtps1.univ-lille1.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id v9NClR13017771 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:47:29 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors From: jfbu In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:47:24 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mos=E8_Giordano?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-USTL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-USTL-MailScanner-ID: v9NClR3U006247 X-USTL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-USTL-MailScanner-From: jfbu@free.fr X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28953 Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Hi Mos=E8 Le 23 oct. 2017 =E0 14:42, Mos=E8 Giordano a =E9crit : > Hi Jean-Fran=E7ois, >=20 > 2017-10-23 11:11 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >> Hi, here is minimal example: >>=20 >> \documentclass{article} >> \begin{document} >> \typeout{Hello:1: } >> \end{document} >>=20 >> This triggers AUCTeX log parser to report wrongly >> that there were compilation errors. >>=20 >> The two colons and the space conspire to this result. >>=20 >> It happened in real life example. >=20 > I think you're asking too much :-) I don't see any meaningful way to > distinguish between a real error and a message you write to the log > that is exactly equal to the file-line-error style. The same happens > with \typeout{! hello world}. >=20 > Bye, > Mos=E8 In real life example the ``:1: `` pattern appeared farther away on the = line inside a sentence. To a human, it is obvious it is not a LaTeX error message. I am confident the logic for recognizing such error messages is improvable. I plan to look at it when I get time to make concrete proposal. Best, Jean-Fran=E7ois= From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 23 11:10:50 2017 Received: (at 28953) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2017 15:10:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57863 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6eNO-0004Ti-7b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:10:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60403) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6eNL-0004TW-Ps for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:10:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6eND-0000R3-Gl for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:10:42 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57592) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6eND-0000Ql-D5 for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:10:39 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]:52246) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1e6eND-0005I3-2v for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:10:39 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j140so6327270itj.1 for <28953@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:10:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUn3A14CCcy9j1qqEgr+qSVzFWu13Jx8oIoSvwOTKCGGECGrTjA +3sI12/8oqvMcpsLzZXMCHHZ0w7YNpd7s8ifG2U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TE9XjnVdOsq9BlyiWhc3OlYa2HbfDmIGow12/TyJnaPR9U4vNcuuoq/HC8WrH2BA2uiT6p0oNqYMsfaDAzDEw= X-Received: by 10.36.1.136 with SMTP id 130mr9070507itk.119.1508771437612; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.2.3.29 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:09:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mos=C3=A8_Giordano?= Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:09:57 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors To: jfbu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28953 Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) 2017-10-23 14:47 GMT+02:00 jfbu : > In real life example the ``:1: `` pattern appeared farther away on the li= ne > inside a sentence. To a human, it is obvious it is not a LaTeX error > message. I am confident the logic for recognizing such error messages > is improvable. I plan to look at it when I get time to make > concrete proposal. The relevant regexp is at line 1507 of tex-buf.el: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=3Dauctex.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dtex-buf.el= ;h=3Df458651c2cffc110ef4af4541c6b08af976907fb;hb=3DHEAD#l1507 Perhaps ".*" is too greedy, anyway that regexp should match anything that is a legal path. I don't expect it to be supereasy to find a regexp matching a path but not a whole sentence ;-) Bye, Mos=C3=A8 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 23 12:35:19 2017 Received: (at 28953) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2017 16:35:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57896 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6fh8-0006VG-S1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:35:19 -0400 Received: from smtp02.univ-lille1.fr ([193.49.225.20]:53653) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6fh7-0006V1-7v for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:35:17 -0400 Received: from smtps1.univ-lille1.fr (smtps1.univ-lille1.fr [193.49.225.52]) by smtp02.univ-lille1.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id v9NGZ5WK022102; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:35:05 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.11] (hel59-4-88-160-125-12.fbx.proxad.net [88.160.125.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtps1.univ-lille1.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id v9NGZ8V1030834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:35:10 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors From: jfbu In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:35:04 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1C600EE8-5514-42B5-B209-1F4A764CC928@free.fr> References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mos=E8_Giordano?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-USTL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-USTL-MailScanner-ID: v9NGZ5WK022102 X-USTL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-USTL-MailScanner-From: jfbu@free.fr X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28953 Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Le 23 oct. 2017 =E0 17:09, Mos=E8 Giordano a =E9crit : > 2017-10-23 14:47 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >> In real life example the ``:1: `` pattern appeared farther away on = the line >> inside a sentence. To a human, it is obvious it is not a LaTeX error >> message. I am confident the logic for recognizing such error messages >> is improvable. I plan to look at it when I get time to make >> concrete proposal. >=20 > The relevant regexp is at line 1507 of tex-buf.el: > = https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=3Dauctex.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dtex-buf.e= l;h=3Df458651c2cffc110ef4af4541c6b08af976907fb;hb=3DHEAD#l1507 > Perhaps ".*" is too greedy, anyway that regexp should match anything > that is a legal path. I don't expect it to be supereasy to find a > regexp matching a path but not a whole sentence ;-) Indeed. But the regexp is really minimal, is there some documentation about the underlying difficulties? Reporting that the LaTeX run had errors, and giving an Error overview could perhaps be split. For example if I try this \documentclass{article} \begin{document} Hi \typeout{./I/am/not/a/file:4: and this is not an error} \typeout{} \ERROR \typeout{} \typeout{! I am not an error.} Did it go OK? \end{document} with Latexmk, it will only say Collected error summary (may duplicate other messages): latex: Command for 'latex' gave return code 1 Refer to 'temp2.log' for details Without the \ERROR, it reports no problem. Now, indeed Latexmk does not report a detailed error summary like AUCTeX (it does report undefined references etc...) For example a \PackageError{foo}{zaza}{tata} will also cause the latex run to exit with return code 1 on my mac os, hence the return code detects it independently of log contents. Could AUCTeX check the return code on platforms allowing it? If return code is 0, it could then say something like "Log file contains data looking like errors, but LaTeX run ended with return code 0". For my example above, with \ERROR commented out, the return code is 0. This is why I asked about documentation about the minimal used regex, because perhaps these were considered already and dismissed for some reason. Bye, Jean-Fran=E7ois= From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 23 18:25:49 2017 Received: (at 28953) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2017 22:25:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58106 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6lAK-0001g1-Qd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:25:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54210) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6lAJ-0001fo-JT for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:25:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6lA9-0004sm-Hz for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:25:42 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:35427) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6lA9-0004sf-Ek for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:25:37 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]:51102) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1e6lA9-0000Bi-1g for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:25:37 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 72so7774766itl.5 for <28953@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXN/2jJ+ygy+NDxdGgQM9LiZi6Sx8vI64rclC59Fe2FTQ+4Q6ga j0jGMZeal72kHMCsKPFqNEv6nLV8YMWuTOe8xM4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SerRjGuc3gF35LZiKn296kM4tALLALB2AK8VpHSaakwZBI/AufNGI7lPvQnFEemAC+aQeL1I7xpKHKBHFNfD8= X-Received: by 10.36.105.65 with SMTP id e62mr10841651itc.16.1508797536176; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.2.3.29 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:24:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1C600EE8-5514-42B5-B209-1F4A764CC928@free.fr> References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> <1C600EE8-5514-42B5-B209-1F4A764CC928@free.fr> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mos=C3=A8_Giordano?= Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:24:55 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors To: jfbu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28953 Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) 2017-10-23 18:35 GMT+02:00 jfbu : > > Le 23 oct. 2017 =C3=A0 17:09, Mos=C3=A8 Giordano a =C3=A9c= rit : > >> 2017-10-23 14:47 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >>> In real life example the ``:1: `` pattern appeared farther away on the = line >>> inside a sentence. To a human, it is obvious it is not a LaTeX error >>> message. I am confident the logic for recognizing such error messages >>> is improvable. I plan to look at it when I get time to make >>> concrete proposal. >> >> The relevant regexp is at line 1507 of tex-buf.el: >> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=3Dauctex.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dtex-buf= .el;h=3Df458651c2cffc110ef4af4541c6b08af976907fb;hb=3DHEAD#l1507 >> Perhaps ".*" is too greedy, anyway that regexp should match anything >> that is a legal path. I don't expect it to be supereasy to find a >> regexp matching a path but not a whole sentence ;-) > > > Indeed. But the regexp is really minimal, is there some documentation > about the underlying difficulties? I don't think there is such documentation, but I'd be happy to be proven wr= ong. As far as I know, using exclamation mark to start an error message is just a widespread convention, there is nothing fundamental in it. For the file-line-error style, the first part should match a file path. I don't know if it **has** to start with "./" (or "/"), or it may change depending on the TeX version (and for sure it depends on the platform used). The file may end with an extension (AUCTeX doesn't really like files without any extension), but TeX doesn't require it at all. > Reporting that the LaTeX run had errors, and giving an Error overview > could perhaps be split. > > For example if I try this > > \documentclass{article} > \begin{document} > Hi > \typeout{./I/am/not/a/file:4: and this is not an error} > \typeout{} > \ERROR > \typeout{} > \typeout{! I am not an error.} > > Did it go OK? > \end{document} > > with Latexmk, it will only say > > Collected error summary (may duplicate other messages): > latex: Command for 'latex' gave return code 1 > Refer to 'temp2.log' for details > > Without the \ERROR, it reports no problem. Now, indeed > Latexmk does not report a detailed error summary like AUCTeX > (it does report undefined references etc...) > > For example a \PackageError{foo}{zaza}{tata} will also > cause the latex run to exit with return code 1 on my mac os, > hence the return code detects it independently of log contents. > > Could AUCTeX check the return code on platforms allowing it? This is interesting, but should be implemented in a reliable way. Bye, Mos=C3=A8 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 24 03:26:05 2017 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Oct 2017 07:26:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58357 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6tbB-00009y-Ir for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 03:26:05 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44401) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6tb9-00009T-86 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 03:26:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6tb3-0002yx-4k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 03:25:57 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:44370) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6tb3-0002yb-13 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 03:25:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35343) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6tb1-0002w2-Qa for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 03:25:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6tay-0002xM-N1 for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 03:25:55 -0400 Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=41607 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e6tay-0002wo-FJ for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 03:25:52 -0400 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6tab-0002Mn-7v for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:25:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bug-auctex@gnu.org From: jfbu Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:25:30 +0200 Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> <1C600EE8-5514-42B5-B209-1F4A764CC928@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.8 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.8 (----) Le 24/10/2017 à 00:24, Mosè Giordano a écrit : > The file may end with an extension (AUCTeX doesn't really like > files without any extension), but TeX doesn't require it at all. Hi Mosè, you are right. What about spaces? I know there isn't a single file with spaces in its path on my TeX installation, and I personally will never ever attempt to use such in my TEXMFHOME or in the document repertory or sub-repertories. Unfortunately I never informed myself about status of spaces in file names with TeX, because they just don't belong to my world. Checking for spaces in the string before :: would have avoided my real-life problem. For concreteness the issue arose because often one uses labels of the type eq:1, thm:3, etc... (indeed possibly AUCTeX prompts user to insert such label) and my package was reporting them in a log message of the type "Undefined label : rerun Latex." Thus checking for space before would have avoided false-positive. I fixed my real-life problem by simply avoiding adding an extra colon. People doing \section{foo}\label{sec:1: (authorA)} See \ref{sec:1: (authorA)} will similarly get bitten by this problem. In some parallel universe, maybe it happened before I cooked up that example. Bye, Jean-François From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 24 19:00:19 2017 Received: (at 28953) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Oct 2017 23:00:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60380 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e78BG-0006nV-SQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:00:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49244) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e78BF-0006nI-CP for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:00:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e78B5-0003w9-Ba for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:00:12 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56336) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e78B5-0003vu-7o for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:00:07 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f50.google.com ([209.85.214.50]:56026) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1e78B4-0000gQ-UG for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:00:07 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f50.google.com with SMTP id l196so11982186itl.4 for <28953@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:00:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWpEDAATwtYLtISiF5cDeUnL65WVcemhQOnzQ3cWbVrN2dARWPh DYJ13TFOI9wyj2PF0Ob72KFLBtQyWQjYFEQMUbM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SVuBy698VGvjVvhQMQbxf4HZClgH9yafaV0Z15DUptFGPMEwvpGNAs5YA2HAwShalGakcezbIVLI6i9jhsfS0= X-Received: by 10.36.1.136 with SMTP id 130mr202361itk.119.1508886005868; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:00:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.2.3.29 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:59:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> <1C600EE8-5514-42B5-B209-1F4A764CC928@free.fr> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mos=C3=A8_Giordano?= Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:59:25 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors To: jfbu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28953 Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.5 (----) 2017-10-24 9:25 GMT+02:00 jfbu : > What about spaces? I know there isn't > a single file with spaces in its path on my TeX installation, > and I personally will never ever attempt to use such in my > TEXMFHOME or in the document repertory or sub-repertories. TeX and AUCTeX don't have problems with spaces in file names. I also avoid spaces in file names, but asking people to completely stop using spaces in order to make AUCTeX work doesn't look good. > People doing > > \section{foo}\label{sec:1: (authorA)} > > See \ref{sec:1: (authorA)} > > will similarly get bitten by this problem. Are there really people mixing numeric style and literal style in labels? :-) Using anything beside [a-zA-Z0-9-:] in LaTeX labels is usually a bad idea, just because there are packages playing with catcodes. For example, underscores are legal in labels, but there are cases where you can get into troubles if you use them, see for example https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/121416/31416 or https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/18312/31416. Bye, Mos=C3=A8 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 25 03:57:46 2017 Received: (at 28953) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Oct 2017 07:57:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60639 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e7GZL-0003e9-Sd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 03:57:44 -0400 Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.3]:28034) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e7GZJ-0003dz-OD for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 03:57:42 -0400 Received: from mba-de-jfb.local (unknown [88.160.125.12]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B932F13F8CB; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:57:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mos=c3=a8_Giordano?= References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> <1C600EE8-5514-42B5-B209-1F4A764CC928@free.fr> From: jfbu Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:57:36 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28953 Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) Hi Mosè Le 25/10/2017 à 00:59, Mosè Giordano a écrit : > 2017-10-24 9:25 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >> What about spaces? I know there isn't >> a single file with spaces in its path on my TeX installation, >> and I personally will never ever attempt to use such in my >> TEXMFHOME or in the document repertory or sub-repertories. > > TeX and AUCTeX don't have problems with spaces in file names. I also > avoid spaces in file names, but asking people to completely stop using > spaces in order to make AUCTeX work doesn't look good. > >> People doing >> >> \section{foo}\label{sec:1: (authorA)} >> >> See \ref{sec:1: (authorA)} >> >> will similarly get bitten by this problem. > > Are there really people mixing numeric style and literal style in > labels? :-) Using anything beside [a-zA-Z0-9-:] in LaTeX labels is > usually a bad idea, just because there are packages playing with > catcodes. For example, underscores are legal in labels, but there are > cases where you can get into troubles if you use them, see for example > https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/121416/31416 or > https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/18312/31416. --- start of slightly off-topic LaTeX considerations As is explained in the answer by HO: > Usually the underscore with its standard catcode "subscript" (8) does > not cause problems, if used inside \label or \ref: > > [...] > > Also shorthands of package babel are not a problem, because babel > patches the \label/\ref system to add support for shorthands. Any package making a character like the underscore globally active without at the same time using the babel patches for making it safe in \label/\ref would simply be a buggy package. HO does end his answer with the "underscore" package and mentions that package is a good citizen. A user making the underscore globally active with no further ado is simply breaking LaTeX and not informed enough. Notice that babel-french turns the colon : into an active character, of course in a way compatible with babel's mechanism. This mechanism is applied by hyperref package in \href parsing. Ironically, there are issues with xelatex/lualatex where babel-french does *not* use active characters at all; because the babel mechanisms do not apply, the behaviour of \href is unexpected. Very recently indeed, babel-french maintainer pushed a fix to CTAN to handle that specific issue. > Version: 3.3d 2017-10-19 > > Slight change for LuaTeX only: > > The automatic insertion of non-breaking spaces before the colon > character has been improved: a spurious space is no longer inserted > in strings like "http://mysite", "C:\textbackslash Program Files" > or "10:55". Regarding that piece of the answer by egreg > Warning. Some characters might give problems when babel is loaded > along with varioref (for example the colon : with French and the > double quote " with many languages). Without varioref these should be > OK. As Martin points out, some packages might redefine _, making it > unusable in labels. it indicates a bug of varioref, that's all. --- end of off-topic digression Now,AUCTeX prompts user at each equation insertion with (Optional) What label: eq: now in a paper when it is not sure in advance which equations one will link to, one is not going to invent a name each time, and simply using numeric labels eq:1, eq:2, is rather natural and I am sure people do this. Or am I really as bezerk I tend to believe, years passing by? I do agree AUCTeX is still rather robust here because even using eq:1: as label appears to be ok, problems may arise when having a space after the second colon. As people have not complained too much on this issue it is to some extent indication indeed that AUCTeX's minimal regex to identify error messages is quite effective. About > TeX and AUCTeX don't have problems with spaces in file names. Are spaces escaped in anyway when writing a filename to log? Unfortunately, here it is not only TeX from TeXBook but rather also the pdfTeX etc... rules which matters: They introduced the filename:linenumber: notation, dropping the ! at start of line thus making log-parsing more difficult. Perhaps they could have used a ! filename:linenumber: error format, but would have this broken expectations from other contexts? Best Jean-François From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jun 16 07:57:10 2022 Received: (at 28953) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jun 2022 11:57:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40917 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1o7Z-0000FI-SY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:57:10 -0400 Received: from smtp1a.inetd.co.jp ([210.129.88.11]:60910) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1o7X-0000F9-UO for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:57:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (61-24-175-238.rev.home.ne.jp [61.24.175.238]) by smtp1a.inetd.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7F9FE2D7; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 20:57:05 +0900 (JST) From: Ikumi Keita To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mos=C3=A8?= Giordano , jfbu Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors In-reply-to: References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> <1C600EE8-5514-42B5-B209-1F4A764CC928@free.fr> Comments: In-reply-to =?UTF-8?Q?Mos=C3=A8?= Giordano message dated "Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:24:55 +0200." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 28.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 20:57:04 +0900 Message-ID: <65945.1655380624@localhost> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28953 Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Mos=E8 and Jean, I've forgotten this bug, but came across it just now. I expect it was fixed recently together with bug#55065[1]. Is it OK to close this bug? Bye, Ikumi Keita #StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine [1] https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-auctex/2022-04/msg00013.html >>>>> Mos=E8 Giordano writes: > 2017-10-23 18:35 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >>=20 >> Le 23 oct. 2017 =E0 17:09, Mos=E8 Giordano a =E9crit : >>=20 >>> 2017-10-23 14:47 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >>>> In real life example the ``:1: `` pattern appeared farther away on the= line >>>> inside a sentence. To a human, it is obvious it is not a LaTeX error >>>> message. I am confident the logic for recognizing such error messages >>>> is improvable. I plan to look at it when I get time to make >>>> concrete proposal. >>>=20 >>> The relevant regexp is at line 1507 of tex-buf.el: >>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=3Dauctex.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dtex-bu= f.el;h=3Df458651c2cffc110ef4af4541c6b08af976907fb;hb=3DHEAD#l1507 >>> Perhaps ".*" is too greedy, anyway that regexp should match anything >>> that is a legal path. I don't expect it to be supereasy to find a >>> regexp matching a path but not a whole sentence ;-) >>=20 >>=20 >> Indeed. But the regexp is really minimal, is there some documentation >> about the underlying difficulties? > I don't think there is such documentation, but I'd be happy to be proven = wrong. > As far as I know, using exclamation mark to start an error message is > just a widespread convention, there is nothing fundamental in it. For > the file-line-error style, the first part should match a file path. I > don't know if it **has** to start with "./" (or "/"), or it may change > depending on the TeX version (and for sure it depends on the platform > used). The file may end with an extension (AUCTeX doesn't really like > files without any extension), but TeX doesn't require it at all. >> Reporting that the LaTeX run had errors, and giving an Error overview >> could perhaps be split. >>=20 >> For example if I try this >>=20 >> \documentclass{article} >> \begin{document} >> Hi >> \typeout{./I/am/not/a/file:4: and this is not an error} >> \typeout{} >> \ERROR >> \typeout{} >> \typeout{! I am not an error.} >>=20 >> Did it go OK? >> \end{document} >>=20 >> with Latexmk, it will only say >>=20 >> Collected error summary (may duplicate other messages): >> latex: Command for 'latex' gave return code 1 >> Refer to 'temp2.log' for details >>=20 >> Without the \ERROR, it reports no problem. Now, indeed >> Latexmk does not report a detailed error summary like AUCTeX >> (it does report undefined references etc...) >>=20 >> For example a \PackageError{foo}{zaza}{tata} will also >> cause the latex run to exit with return code 1 on my mac os, >> hence the return code detects it independently of log contents. >>=20 >> Could AUCTeX check the return code on platforms allowing it? > This is interesting, but should be implemented in a reliable way. > Bye, > Mos=E8 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jun 16 08:42:34 2022 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jun 2022 12:42:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40997 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1opV-0003X5-Uz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 08:42:34 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:42324) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1opS-0003Ww-Uh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 08:42:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42174) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o1opS-0003Q7-LH for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 08:42:30 -0400 Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]:48912) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o1opQ-00063p-QX for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 08:42:30 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o1opM-0009jW-9M for bug-auctex@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 14:42:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bug-auctex@gnu.org From: jfbu Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 14:42:16 +0200 Message-ID: <6688008a-348d-a732-46e6-031df7ba417e@free.fr> References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> <1C600EE8-5514-42B5-B209-1F4A764CC928@free.fr> <65945.1655380624@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Content-Language: fr In-Reply-To: <65945.1655380624@localhost> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=geab-bug-auctex@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -13 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) Hi Keita and Mosè, OK with me, thanks I noticed in 2017 I wrote > I plan to look at it when I get time to make > concrete proposal. Obviously I never got time... As per my original problem it had occurred in a LaTeX package of mine and I fixed it there via avoiding using \ref with some argument including a ":", which I replaced with a full stop "." rather. This is why, probably, I did not bother more, sorry... Best, Jean-François Le 16/06/2022 à 13:57, Ikumi Keita a écrit : > Hi Mosè and Jean, > > I've forgotten this bug, but came across it just now. I expect it was > fixed recently together with bug#55065[1]. > > Is it OK to close this bug? > > Bye, > Ikumi Keita > #StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine > > [1] https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-auctex/2022-04/msg00013.html > >>>>>> Mosè Giordano writes: >> 2017-10-23 18:35 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >>> >>> Le 23 oct. 2017 à 17:09, Mosè Giordano a écrit : >>> >>>> 2017-10-23 14:47 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >>>>> In real life example the ``:1: `` pattern appeared farther away on the line >>>>> inside a sentence. To a human, it is obvious it is not a LaTeX error >>>>> message. I am confident the logic for recognizing such error messages >>>>> is improvable. I plan to look at it when I get time to make >>>>> concrete proposal. >>>> >>>> The relevant regexp is at line 1507 of tex-buf.el: >>>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=auctex.git;a=blob;f=tex-buf.el;h=f458651c2cffc110ef4af4541c6b08af976907fb;hb=HEAD#l1507 >>>> Perhaps ".*" is too greedy, anyway that regexp should match anything >>>> that is a legal path. I don't expect it to be supereasy to find a >>>> regexp matching a path but not a whole sentence ;-) >>> >>> >>> Indeed. But the regexp is really minimal, is there some documentation >>> about the underlying difficulties? > >> I don't think there is such documentation, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. > >> As far as I know, using exclamation mark to start an error message is >> just a widespread convention, there is nothing fundamental in it. For >> the file-line-error style, the first part should match a file path. I >> don't know if it **has** to start with "./" (or "/"), or it may change >> depending on the TeX version (and for sure it depends on the platform >> used). The file may end with an extension (AUCTeX doesn't really like >> files without any extension), but TeX doesn't require it at all. > >>> Reporting that the LaTeX run had errors, and giving an Error overview >>> could perhaps be split. >>> >>> For example if I try this >>> >>> \documentclass{article} >>> \begin{document} >>> Hi >>> \typeout{./I/am/not/a/file:4: and this is not an error} >>> \typeout{} >>> \ERROR >>> \typeout{} >>> \typeout{! I am not an error.} >>> >>> Did it go OK? >>> \end{document} >>> >>> with Latexmk, it will only say >>> >>> Collected error summary (may duplicate other messages): >>> latex: Command for 'latex' gave return code 1 >>> Refer to 'temp2.log' for details >>> >>> Without the \ERROR, it reports no problem. Now, indeed >>> Latexmk does not report a detailed error summary like AUCTeX >>> (it does report undefined references etc...) >>> >>> For example a \PackageError{foo}{zaza}{tata} will also >>> cause the latex run to exit with return code 1 on my mac os, >>> hence the return code detects it independently of log contents. >>> >>> Could AUCTeX check the return code on platforms allowing it? > >> This is interesting, but should be implemented in a reliable way. > >> Bye, >> Mosè > > > > _______________________________________________ > bug-auctex mailing list > bug-auctex@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jun 16 09:27:36 2022 Received: (at 28953) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jun 2022 13:27:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41091 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1pX6-0006rX-0r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 09:27:36 -0400 Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5]:34206) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1pX3-0006rO-96 for 28953@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 09:27:34 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.219] (unknown [109.8.144.80]) (Authenticated sender: jfbu@free.fr) by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58FCA5FFC5; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:27:29 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=free.fr; s=smtp-20201208; t=1655386051; bh=gI1GN0rIZGAgGlb72vVpchLIS+zWaVemuolRouoVvHU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=eOlIcpzX2NC3sSp/JIoNTfyZaaqYg+Q8UT25Cw28sXwN0jfC6jOUYu8T+EbdhGY13 WcFOBsJn+gCBFvz5WTQpHV0jZyxQK72AD0LHSc1nqhzlpHD8T0R8qQDHiQflYP0ZzD G/i2sAJh3Ivm+IQXdzlOJAiuusYV9FZRFq5kGIpWdk/UQQ+bLc8JtQMH0LH7p+D8u3 VpKPzrMLwcFT6rrIoe+Ra8+8qo1+9n9CsLEMRtU3xNdyFgKee9cWA/z6H1u2dLENz3 tSBzphtshSKVz+qlu3eG6USsqtLuouBxpJx/1UUN40LWrXjC7obheiJ5459Urtp3+d QN7IBGYrF8yLw== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\)) Subject: Re: bug#28953: 11.91.0; wrong alert about inexistent LaTeX errors From: jfbu In-Reply-To: <65945.1655380624@localhost> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:27:28 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4C19E60F-5677-4F59-B0D9-094040B023DA@free.fr> <5BD2FE55-D501-460C-8187-ED06E3DEFA6F@free.fr> <1C600EE8-5514-42B5-B209-1F4A764CC928@free.fr> <65945.1655380624@localhost> To: =?utf-8?Q?Mos=C3=A8_Giordano?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7) X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 28953 Cc: 28953@debbugs.gnu.org, Ikumi Keita X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Mos=C3=A9, (replying about 56 months later) >=20 > Le 24 oct. 2017 =C3=A0 00:24, Mos=C3=A8 Giordano a = =C3=A9crit : >=20 > 2017-10-23 18:35 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >>=20 >> Le 23 oct. 2017 =C3=A0 17:09, Mos=C3=A8 Giordano a = =C3=A9crit : >>=20 >>> 2017-10-23 14:47 GMT+02:00 jfbu : >>>> In real life example the ``:1: `` pattern appeared farther away on = the line >>>> inside a sentence. To a human, it is obvious it is not a LaTeX = error >>>> message. I am confident the logic for recognizing such error = messages >>>> is improvable. I plan to look at it when I get time to make >>>> concrete proposal. >>>=20 >>> The relevant regexp is at line 1507 of tex-buf.el: >>> = https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=3Dauctex.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dtex-buf.e= l;h=3Df458651c2cffc110ef4af4541c6b08af976907fb;hb=3DHEAD#l1507 >>> Perhaps ".*" is too greedy, anyway that regexp should match anything >>> that is a legal path. I don't expect it to be supereasy to find a >>> regexp matching a path but not a whole sentence ;-) >>=20 >>=20 >> Indeed. But the regexp is really minimal, is there some documentation >> about the underlying difficulties? >=20 > I don't think there is such documentation, but I'd be happy to be = proven wrong. >=20 about this: > As far as I know, using exclamation mark to start an error message is > just a widespread convention, there is nothing fundamental in it. For Only to point out that it is core TeX behaviour in errorstopmode: (quoting from tex.web sources:) > The print_err procedure supplies a =E2=80=98!=E2=80=99 before the = official message, and makes sure that the terminal is awake if a stop is = going to occur.=20 >=20 > @ The global variable |interaction| has four settings, representing = increasing > amounts of user interaction: >=20 > @d batch_mode=3D0 {omits all stops and omits terminal output} > @d nonstop_mode=3D1 {omits all stops} > @d scroll_mode=3D2 {omits error stops} > @d error_stop_mode=3D3 {stops at every opportunity to interact} > @d print_err(#)=3D=3Dbegin if interaction=3Derror_stop_mode then = wake_up_terminal; > print_nl("! "); print(#); > end Any LaTeX \PackageError ultimately goes through TeX=E2=80=99s = \errmessage and \errhelp mechanisms. But the change file tex.ch implements -file-line-error option and this = is relevant: > @x [6.73] l.1734 - file:line:error style error messages. > print_nl("! "); print(#); > @y > if file_line_error_style_p then print_file_line > else print_nl("! "); > print(#); > @z The procedure print_file_line has coding > procedure print_file_line; > var level: 0..max_in_open; > begin > level:=3Din_open; > while (level>0) and (full_source_filename_stack[level]=3D0) do > decr(level); > if level=3D0 then > print_nl("! ") > else begin > print_nl (""); print (full_source_filename_stack[level]); print = (":"); > if level=3Din_open then print_int (line) > else print_int (line_stack[level+1]); > print (": "); > end; > end; Some other relevant pieces from tex.ch from web2c=20 > % Plus, it's nicer just to do an exit with the appropriate status code > % under Unix. We call it `uexit' because there's a WEB symbol called > % `exit' already. We use a C macro to change `uexit' back to `exit'. > @d do_final_end=3D=3Dbegin > update_terminal; > ready_already:=3D0; > if (history <> spotless) and (history <> warning_issued) then > uexit(1) > else > uexit(0); > end and from tex.web: > @d spotless=3D0 {|history| value when nothing has been amiss yet} > @d warning_issued=3D1 {|history| value when |begin_diagnostic| has = been called} > @d error_message_issued=3D2 {|history| value when |error| has been = called} > @d fatal_error_stop=3D3 {|history| value when termination was = premature} which is probably related to the exit status returned by binary in case \errmessage has been made used of Cheers, Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jun 16 09:40:16 2022 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jun 2022 13:40:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41104 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1pjL-0007Al-UT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 09:40:16 -0400 Received: from smtp1a.inetd.co.jp ([210.129.88.11]:32834) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o1pjJ-0007AU-Mv for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 09:40:15 -0400 Received: from localhost (61-24-175-238.rev.home.ne.jp [61.24.175.238]) by smtp1a.inetd.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B475B2D7 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 22:40:10 +0900 (JST) To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Ikumi Keita Subject: control message for bug #28953 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <66334.1655386808.1@localhost> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 22:40:08 +0900 Message-ID: <66335.1655386808@localhost> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) close 28953 quit From unknown Fri Jun 13 10:42:41 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 11:24:07 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator