GNU bug report logs - #35284
12.1.1; new verbatim environment wrongly commented out

Previous Next

Package: auctex;

Reported by: jfbu <jfbu <at> free.fr>

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:12:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: fixed

Found in version 12.1.1

Done: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #20 received at 35284 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: gojjoe <at> gmail.com
To: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>, jfbu <jfbu <at> free.fr>
Cc: 35284 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35284: 12.1.1; new verbatim environment wrongly commented out
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:01:07 +0200
Is this possibly connected with the small bug that I reported a while ago?

I enclose the text of my old report:

---------------------

I've noticed a little bug when auto-fill operates on a line finishing with a "%". To reproduce:

1. Activate auto-fill-mode in a tex file with LaTeX mode.

2. Set fill-column to some value; here I use 20.

3. Suppose you have a line like this:

123456789% commented

4. Now you'd like to add some more text right before the "%", eg "-1234567890 abc".

Note that "123456789-1234567890" is twenty characters long, so auto-fill should automatically insert a newline as we type the space after "0". Expected result:

123456789-1234567890
abc% commented


Instead I get this:

123456789-1234567890
% abccommented

That is, my text has been continued  *within* the comment, which wasn't my intention


– Further info:

A. If the text before the comment is *already longer* than auto-fill-column when I type the space, and if auto-fill can carry some previous text to the new line, then everything works correctly. For example, If I have

123456789% commented

And now I type " 1234567890X abc" (note: space instead of "-") right before the "%", I get

123456789
1234567890X abc% commented

as desired.

B. The length of the text after "%" seems to be irrelevant for the issue.

----------------------

On 19-04-16 14:47, Ikumi Keita wrote:
> Thanks for your comments.  I agree that the current behavior is not
> totally satisfactory, and expect the attatched patch would crudely
> resolve this particular issue.  However, the relevant codes must be
> involved in a lot, lot of different cases, so it might not be valid for
> some other cases.  I'm not sure currently.




This bug report was last modified 5 years and 200 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.