defaults bugs n fixes

[Volker Kuhlmann]

> > 1) Normal (La)TeX macros
> 
> LaTeX isn´t TeX, and the LaTeX patterns are made for LaTeX writing 
> primarily, not for TeX programming.

True, but you can view LaTeX as a superset of TeX, therefore the LaTeX
patterns work for either. It's good enough esp as using plain TeX is
uncommon.

> > 2) Text describing those macros
> > 3) Markup for 2).
> 
> It contains actually the manual for the macro package, typeset in LaTeX
> and hidden behing comment signs.  So the part which really should get
> highlighted like LaTeX is highlighted like a comment.

True and true. That's why I said 2) could do with improvements. It's not
nearly as important as say a book though, because in .dtx, you're
writing documentation for your macros, with the aim of using as little
markup as possible, not with the aim of making a sophisticated polished
document. It's auto-generated documentation, not camera ready output.
There's a difference.

>  The rest, ie the
> TeX program doesn´t need highlighting.

Very definitely false. The TeX program, as you call it, is the very
reason for the existance of the .dtx in the first place. That's where
all the programming work is done, and that's where the real content is.
The rest is just documenting the code and user documentation. Important,
but still secondary. You're saying "no need to highlight the C code,
let's just get the comments in the program right". Uhhm, no.

One could extend the LaTeX patterns to cover .dtx as well (is this
possible?), or one could try a different pattern set and switch between
the LaTeX and .dtx pattern sets depending on which part one is working
on. Not terribly convenient, but better than nothing.

> proposed to change that, because highlighting dtx like TeX doesn´t make
> a professional impression.

Neither does doing nothing, IMHO.

Volker

-- 
Volker Kuhlmann			is list0570 with the domain in header
http://volker.dnsalias.net/	Please do not CC list postings to me.