Cleaning up troubleshooting and other sections in FAQ; need input
dev.null at iwi.uni-sb.de
Wed Dec 1 09:04:28 EST 2004
* Steve Youngs (2004-12-01) writes:
> * Ralf Angeli <dev.null at iwi.uni-sb.de> writes:
> * Stephen J. Turnbull (2004-12-01) writes:
> >> AUCTeX is extremely complicated, and its developers primarily use
> >> GNU Emacs.
> > The usage share of XEmacs compared to GNU Emacs amoung AUCTeX
> > developers is something which (theoretically) can change at short
> > notice. Therefore it is probably better not be engrave it in a
> > long-lasting FAQ section.
> Well, if the situation ever changes (anyone willing to take bets on
Actually we get nearly as much feedback from XEmacs users as from GNU
Emacs users. That could be due to having failed in providing a
version without severe bugs on XEmacs, but it is a sign that there are
quite some people using this combination. If there are only a few of
them interested in improving AUCTeX for XEmacs, the situation actually
could change, anytime. I don't think this is far-fetched.
> you can send in a patch to remove those half dozen or so
And if the usage share changes again send another patch? Volatile
information shouldn't really be part of longer lasting documents like
manuals, FAQs etc.
Besides, the sentence is used to explain why AUCTeX on XEmacs lacks
some features compared to AUCTeX on GNU Emacs. But it tells only part
of the story. One main problem we currently have on XEmacs is that
font locking of syntactic keywords is not working, which is probably
due to a bug in XEmacs' font-lock.el. I sent a bug report about this
a while a go to this list. So lacking functionality isn't simply a
result of AUCTeX developers not using XEmacs as the proposed FAQ entry
More information about the XEmacs-Beta