Xref: utzoo gnu.emacs.help:2152 comp.text.tex:7657 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!dkuug!iesd!iesd.auc.dk!abraham From: abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help,comp.text.tex Subject: Re: xdvi in emacs ... (and much more) Message-ID: Date: 25 May 91 14:22:45 GMT References: <1991May16.152416.17303@unibi.uni-bielefeld.de> <1991May24.111343.7835@kub.nl> Sender: news@iesd.auc.dk Followup-To: gnu.emacs.help Organization: HUGIN Expert A/S Lines: 21 In-reply-to: kolb@kub.nl's message of 24 May 91 11:13:43 GMT [ Followups directed to gnu.emacs.help ] >>>>> On 24 May 91 11:13:43 GMT, kolb@kub.nl (Hans-Peter Kolb) said: Kolb> Sounds very interesting! But why, oh why did you base your mode Kolb> on the hopelessly outdated standard shell.el??? As you probably Kolb> know, there is a much more robust and external command Kolb> interface, namely Olin Shrivers' comint.el. I, for one, have Kolb> decided not to go back to shell.el. And since I'm too ignorant Kolb> (and lazy) to change your AUC modes myself, I'll stick to Kolb> cmutex.el for the time being. Should, however, anyone hack the Kolb> AUC modes for the use of comint, and post the diffs, I'd be VERY Kolb> grateful... Could you explain why the `external command interface' matters? AUC-TeX only uses the shell for running the commands and displaying their output. Almost all interactions happens through the buffer with the (La)TeX text, and are interpreted by AUC-TeX, not the shell. What would comint.el gain us?