GNU bug report logs - #65912
2023-08-31; Fix xref errors when matching in unvisited files

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 65912 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: David Fussner <dfussner <at> googlemail.com>
To: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
Cc: 65912 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65912: 2023-08-31;
 Fix xref errors when matching in unvisited files
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 14:51:53 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Keita,

Thanks for this. Texinfo mode is out of scope, so I'll have a look and get
back to you once I'm back on the computer.

To be honest, other changes might also make this fix unnecessary, depending
on what Dmitry thinks works best.

Best, and I'll be in touch.

David.

On Sun, 17 Sept 2023, 14:02 Ikumi Keita, <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> > On Fri, 15 Sept 2023, 06:45 Ikumi Keita, <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> wrote:
> >> It seems reasonable basically. However, this makes two regression tests
> >> fail:
> >> 2 unexpected results:
> >> FAILED  LaTeX-filling
> >> FAILED  LaTeX-style-hook-with-class-option
> >>
> >> I thought the following advice in latex-test.el is interfering badly:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ;; We need to ensure that font-lock has put the syntax properties
> >> ;; already which won't happen in batch mode.  So trigger font-lock
> >> ;; immediately.
> >> (define-advice LaTeX-common-initialization (:after ())
> >> (font-lock-ensure))
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> However, the failures remain even after I deleted this advice. I haven't
> >> figured out what's going on yet. (Maybe the failures only appear in
> >> batch mode and aren't real issues.) Does anyone out there have insights?
>
> I think I now understand the reason. Some of the style hooks presume
> that the file local variables are already established. Therefore,
> I have to arrange regression tests so that `TeX-update-style' in
> `latex-mode' runs inside `let' form where relevant variables are bound.
>
> Attached is my current proposal.
>
> >> > The attached patch (0002) parses and applies styles in the temp
> >> > buffer, and only in such non-file-visiting buffers. It does so both in
> >> > LaTeX-common-initialization and in plain-TeX-common-initialization,
>
> LaTeX-common-initialization isn't a suitable place because of the
> following reasons:
> 1. LaTeX mode makes addtion to `TeX-update-style-hook' after it calls
>    LaTeX-common-initialization.
> 2. It is legitimate for style hooks to assume that they are called after
>    mode hooks (e.g. LaTeX-mode-hook) run.
> I moved the call to TeX-update-style at the last of latex-mode,
> plain-tex-mode and ams-tex-mode. This doesn't cover context mode, but I
> think it doesn't harm.
> It still doesn't wait mode hooks in doctex mode since doctex mode is
> defined by `define-derived-mode', but I'd postpone that issue for now.
> I'll do I can do in feature/fix-mode-names-overlap branch later.
>
> >> > which I think covers all the modes.
>
> Actually it (and my patch as well) doesn't cover Texinfo mode, but I
> suppose texinfo mode is out of the scope for the first place. Is this
> right?
>
> Regards,
> Ikumi Keita
> #StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine
>
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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