Re: [AUCTeX-devel] New error parsing

[Mosè Giordano]

Hi Tassilo,

2016-02-25 19:31 GMT+01:00 Tassilo Horn <address@hidden>:
> Mosè Giordano <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Hi Mosè,
>
>> I noticed that the regexp in `TeX-parse-error' doesn't match vertical
>> bad boxes messages, that usually are like
>>
>>   Underfull \vbox (badness 1048) has occurred while \output is active [7]
>>
>> where [7] is the page where the bad box occurred, if I got it right.
>> Ok, this message is pretty useless as it is because it doesn't provide
>> the offending file and line, but nevertheless I think we should catch
>> it.
>
> And where would we jump to if there's no information on the location?

It jumps in the referenced file but point is not moved, see
`TeX-find-display-help'.  I think users should be aware there are bad
boxes even if the log isn't helpful in telling them where to look.
This is exactly what editors do, like TeXstudio.

>> In addition, in a document of mine I have some bad horizontal boxes
>> with messages like
>>
>>   Overfull \hbox (0.93071pt too wide) detected at line 29
>>
>> but the regexp expects it to end with "at lines 12--34".
>
> I've checked some log files of mine, and I didn't find a singular
> version ("at line X").  But if you have them, the surely are possible.

The offending lines are in the table of contents and the list of
figures (*.toc and *.lof files).

> One strange thing I found in my logs is that the first line may be
> larger than the second, i.e.,
>
>   Overfull \hbox (1.95412pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 8--1
>
> But those seemt to appear only in pygtex files, i.e., code listings
> texified by pygments using the minted LaTeX style.
>
>> How about replacing the regexp for horizontal bad boxes with
>>
>> "^\\(\\(?:Overfull\\|Underfull\\|Tight\\|Loose\\)\
>>  \\\\.*?lines? [0-9]+\\(?:--[0-9]+\\)\\)"
>>
>> ?  I'm not sure, though, the phrase "detected at line(s)" always
>> appears in such warnings.  As an alternative:
>>
>> "^\\(\\(?:Overfull\\|Underfull\\|Tight\\|Loose\\)\
>>  \\\\.*?[0-9]+\\(?:--[0-9]+\\)?$\\)"
>>
>> with the trailing "$".  What do you think?
>
> I'd start with the stricter version for now, i.e., the first version
> with additional trailing $.

Ok, I'll do that, thanks!

Bye,
Mosè