Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Regarding directory layout...

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2005-05-15) writes:
>
>> It would appear that putting something like bib-cite.el which can work
>> without AUCTeX into the auctex subdirectory is not a good idea (auctex
>> is only searched when AUCTeX gets used).  So I think that we probably
>> will have to place a number of files along with tex-site.el (namely:
>> in the load-path, but not autoloaded).  At the moment, I think this
>> should be the following:
>>
>> tex-mik.el
>> tex-fptex.el
>> bib-cite.el
>> font-latex.el
>
> font-latex.el depends on tex.el and is not useful on its own.

Hm.  It contains stuff like

;;; Installation in non-AUCTeX LaTeX mode

(add-hook 'latex-mode-hook 'font-latex-setup)
;; If font-latex is loaded using a latex-mode-hook, then the add-hook above
;; won't be called this time around.  Check for this now:
(if (eq major-mode 'latex-mode)
    (font-latex-setup))

Now it may be that with the new scheme you can actually use font-latex
in "native" latex-mode after customizing TeX-modes.  I am not sure
whether we should bother at all.  And it would certainly seem dubious
that TeX-esc would be set correctly in such modes.

What's the opinion of people that actually work with/on it?

Anyway, because of the dependency on tex.el, it does not make sense to
install it in site-lisp instead of auctex.  Good.  One load-path order
worry gone.

For the same reason I would want to keep tex-mik.el and tex-fptex.el
inside of the auctex dir: if we are shadowing a sumo installation of
AUCTeX, I don't want to have their versions of those files shadow the
site-lisp ones.

It's actually the same with bib-cite.el, but bib-cite.el is useful
even without AUCTeX.  If we move it into site-lisp, we can almost be
sure that it will get shadowed by other AUCTeX versions.

Opinions?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum