Re: Mode hooks for latex and tex files

[Arash Esbati]

Heime <heimeborgia@protonmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, December 3rd, 2024 at 1:17 AM, Arash Esbati <arash@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> The only point you have to consider is that there are 2 major modes for
>> editing plain-tex and latex files:
>>
>> • The modes bundled with Emacs (in tex-mode.el, do
>> 'M-x locate-library RET tex-mode RET') and
>>
>> • the modes provided by AUCTeX (a package you must install from ELPA
>> first).
>>
>> If you're using the former, use `plain-tex-mode-hook' or`
>> latex-mode-hook', and with the latter, set `plain-TeX-mode-hook' or`
>> LaTeX-mode-hook'.
>>
>> `tex-mode-hook' and` TeX-mode-hook' are sort of meta-modes and not
>> intended for end users, so don't set them.
>
> AUCTeX introduces unnecessary complexity by deviating from standard
> naming conventions for tool-related modes.

Which naming conventions are you referring to and where are they
described?  The ones I'm aware of are written here[1] which read:

  You should choose a short word to distinguish your program from other
  Lisp programs. The names of all global symbols in your program, that
  is the names of variables, constants, and functions, should begin with
  that chosen prefix. Separate the prefix from the rest of the name with
  a hyphen, ‘-’. This practice helps avoid name conflicts, since all
  global variables in Emacs Lisp share the same name space, and all
  functions share another name space.

AUCTeX uses camel-case prefix based on the file names, a sort of
MyLib-varname.  As another example, you can grep through the gnus
sub-directory to see that not every hook defined there is prefixed with
'gnus-'.

> Instead of adhering to the typical package-prefixed predicate style
> (e.g., auctex-tex-mode and auctex-latex-mode), it opts for
> inconsistent and unintuitive names.

This is one opinion; but AUCTeX developers had another one for the
prefix they used.

> The use of plain-tex-mode instead of a unified tex-mode (as seen with
> latex-mode) adds further redundancy. Meta-modes not intended for
> direct user interaction should avoid using intuitive and general names
> like tex-mode, reserving such names for user-facing
> functionality. This inconsistency is unique to AUCTeX;

The mode names above (and the corresponding hooks) are all defined in
tex-mode.el which is distributed with Emacs; they don't belong to
AUCTeX:

$ grep define-derived-mode tex-mode.el
(define-derived-mode tex-mode text-mode "generic-TeX"
(define-derived-mode plain-tex-mode tex-mode "TeX"
(define-derived-mode latex-mode tex-mode "LaTeX"
(define-derived-mode slitex-mode latex-mode "SliTeX"
(define-derived-mode tex-shell shell-mode "TeX-Shell"
(define-derived-mode doctex-mode latex-mode "DocTeX"

As you can see, tex-mode.el breaks every "rule" you think you're
describing with "typical package-prefixed predicate style".  A "mylib-"
prefix might be a natural choice for single file libraries, but it isn't
a must as long you get the prefix right.

> I am also interested in the made hooks.  Would the built-in be
> plain-tex-mode-hook and latex-mode-hook?  Is there also tex-mode-hook?

Did you read my first message?

Best, Arash

Footnotes:
[1]  
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/elisp.html#Coding-Conventions