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

[TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com>]

 
Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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.