Re: (Feature Request) have org-edit-special work inside non-environment LaTeX blocks, i.e. \( \) and \[ \]

[TEC]

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes: 

> Without hesitation, the first form is nicer. The second one is 
> just abusing let-binding. I die a little just by looking at it. 

I'll make an attempt to avoid killing you then :P

> See `rx' macro. S-exp regexps are usually easier to read (after 
> an initial struggle), and less likely to introduce subtle bugs. 
> For long regexps, this is important. For this one, either way is 
> fine. 

I'll just remove the -p and be done with it then.

> Well. Ideally, let-binding should enclose the minimum part of 
> the code that needs the binding. Sometimes, an exception is 
> tolerated, because the code would contain too many nested 
> let-forms. But, conversely, you shouldn't stuff every local 
> variable at the beginning of the function and be done with it. 
>
> In this particular case, there's no reason to stuff the `length' 
> call at the top of the function when you need it later on, on a 
> well-defined S-exp. IOW, it is more idiomatic to just add a 
> let-binding around the appropriate (add-text-properties ...). 

Somehow it feels like overkill to have

(let (contents-length (length contents))
...)

when it's only used twice :P

> But it should be ", so remove newlines." 

Gah!

> > I recall being asked to list modified/added functions, what 
> > else do I need? 
>
> Nothing else. 

Should be good then, as far as I can tell.

> > > Bonus points if you can add some tests in 
> > > "testing/lisp/test-org-src.el". 
> >
> > I'll have a look at that, but I'm not quite sure what to do. 
>
> You could look at `test-org-src/footnote-references' for 
> inspiration.  However, I assume tests will be less complicated 
> for LaTeX fragments. 

I'll have a look.

> We're almost there, then.

Nice! :) I'll try to send through the next iteration soon.