Re: Dependency on tex-buf.el

[Ikumi Keita]

Hi David and Tassilo,

>>>>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
> As a note aside: we are using Git as version control system these days.
> Git doesn't maintain change histories in the first place but computes
> them on the fly when calling "git blame" or similar.  It has various
> options on how thoroughly it will track content moving across files.

Oh, indeed!
,----[ 
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Debugging-with-Git#_file_annotation ]
| Another cool thing about Git is that it doesn’t track file renames
| explicitly. It records the snapshots and then tries to figure out what
| was renamed implicitly, after the fact. One of the interesting
| features of this is that you can ask it to figure out all sorts of
| code movement as well. If you pass -C to git blame, Git analyzes the
| file you’re annotating and tries to figure out where snippets of code
| within it originally came from if they were copied from elsewhere.
`----
That's a fantastic feature.

Then I think that Tassilo's proposal C' is much reasonable.
>>>>> Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org> writes:
>   (C') Move all tex-buf stuff into tex.el and get rid of that ugly
>        circular dependency and nuke all of those byte-compiler
>        sanitizing defvars, declare-functions, and autoloads.

Sounds attracting.

> I'd vote for C' unless someone can tell me why this separation is
> needed.  It looks like its intention was to save some memory back in the
> old days.  Noble idea but still useful?  I don't think so.  tex-buf is
> not that huge.  Ok, it requires comint but that's used by so many emacs
> packages anyway.  Even the stock Emacs tex-mode.el requires compile
> which requires comint...

Since tex-buf.el requires latex.el also, it would introduce another
circular dependency if all contents of tex-buf.el is moved into tex.el
as-is. However, I hope that we can sort out that.

Regards,
Ikumi Keita
#StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine