From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUCTeX conflicting with org-mode
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:48:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMXnza1Bo5G5GXkcPwENcttdjXWLQR2kEM6UJkjW6Xjsv6VrJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMXnza0mCFfMzj8MKyCBf9raF0iysVfBAdHELfHPC9=_EP6yJg@mail.gmail.com>
	<yagnesh@live.com> <87sjhlxako.fsf@live.com>
	<20423.1331134740@alphaville> <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com>
	<CAMXnza0bKGUyeH27t_==QXfNYB5ZDyHS9diTfHDYCEsLS+1_cQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<3555.1331150405@alphaville>
	<CAMXnza0L3JQkLZLGi_rT7mZ8yVNV2T-QarGmp+9_GRRFfzRzMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4125.1331159402@alphaville> <87399jo9go.fsf@live.com>
	<87r4wnpmbn.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43300)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <fatkasuvayu@gmail.com>) id 1SA0Mn-0001ZZ-6D
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:48:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <fatkasuvayu@gmail.com>) id 1SA0Mh-0003Df-B9
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:48:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87r4wnpmbn.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Yagnesh Raghava Yakkala <yagnesh@live.com>

Hi Bastien and Yagnesh,

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:02, Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hi Yagnesh,
>
> Yagnesh Raghava Yakkala <yagnesh@live.com> writes:
>
>> Thanks for the analysis. I think you are right. With my limited elisp skills I
>> would say its a *bug* and coming from org.
>>
>> If I take that let-binding off and setting the TeX-master by checking with
>> if it ever bound seems fixing this problem.
>>
>> this patch fixing the problem. (can be further improved)
>
> Applied, thanks.
>

I wanted to comment earlier but it slipped my mind, sorry about that.

I am not sure if this patch is quite corect. It removes the let bind and
instead conditionally uses setq to bind it to t. From the docs I see the
variable becomes buffer local when set in any fashion, but does that
still mean it is okay to use setq?

I can imagine in a complicated publishing project, an org file might
need to set the value to something. I suppose this will override any
such custom config. Is my analysis correct? It might be worth thinking
about before applying the patch.

Is a conditional let binding possible, it might be the safer choice in
that case.

Thanks,

-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.