GNU bug report logs - #78693
14.0.9; Folding of math macros with a function spec is broken

Previous Next

Package: auctex;

Reported by: Rahguzar <rahguzar <at> mailbox.org>

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:49:03 UTC

Severity: normal

Merged with 78696, 78698

Found in version 14.0.9

Done: "Paul D. Nelson" <ultrono <at> gmail.com>

Full log


Message #14 received at 78693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rahguzar <rahguzar <at> mailbox.org>
To: "Paul D. Nelson" <ultrono <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 78693 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 14.0.9; Folding of math macros with a function spec is broken
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 22:32:46 +0500
Hi Paul,

"Paul D. Nelson" <ultrono <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Here's a proposed solution that seems more robust to me.  Recall that
> *macro*/*math* are lists consisting of items
>
>   (SPEC (M1 M2 ...)),
>
> where SPEC is a display specification (an integer, a string or a
> function) and M1, M2, ... are macro names as strings.  We could enhance
> the display specification to allow
>
>   ((SPEC . SIG) (M1 M2 ...)),
>
> where SIG is a "signature" that restricts the number of args:
>
> - nil means no restriction,
>
> - an integer n means at most n total args (so 0 means unargumented), and
>
> - a cons cell (p . q) means at most p optional and q required args.
>
> With that enhancement, we could revert d0a57d8d and tag the defaults for
> LaTeX-fold-math-spec-list with "0", e.g.,
>
>   ("∈" ("in"))   ->   (("∈" . 0) ("in"))
>
> That would fix the original "\in [0,1]" issue as well as the issue
> raised by Raghuzar.  It would also make it easy to fix related issues,
> like the one with \mathbf noted above.  Thoughts?

I like this proposal. It is backward compatible I think it should also
allow us to deal with optional arguments in a function spec. Currently
if the spec is a function it only receives the mandatory arguments. If
the number of arguments is part of the spec we can allow it to receive
up to p+q args without breaking existing code.

> Finally, I noticed that we've been CC'ing bug-auctex rather than the
> specific bug number, which is generating duplicated bugs at
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-auctex/2025-06/threads.html.
> I've tried to fix that here.

Thanks for catching this. I was surprised by emails about those new bugs.

Rahguzar




This bug report was last modified today.

Previous Next


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