defaults bugs n fixes

[Joerg Fischer]

Volker Kuhlmann wrote:

> >  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.

If one sends the dtx (docTeX) file to latex, one gets a print out of 
the documentation / manual typeset in latex.  So, somehow one could see
the dtx file also as kind of half-latex file.  However, these parts
are shown as comments in latex highlighting.  

(On the other hand, sending the dtx file to the so-called docstrip
utility one gets the code in form of say a sty file.  Of course,
such a program could be written directly, but in fact the vast
majority of TeX macros is written in this dtx format.)

>You're saying "no need to highlight the C code, let's just get the
>comments in the program right". Uhhm, no.

The documentation in the dtx file are not merely comments for the
code in the sense of a C program.  Moreover, what I mean is that the
latex highlighting wasn't written primarily to highlight a TeX
program - perhaps one should mention that while TeX is a typesetting
program it is at the same time a Turing complete programming
language.  However, while a letter or an article, book, thesis ...
written in latex goes like 

text text text \command text text $maths$ text text text, 

that is lots of text to be typeset and a few commands for the typesetter
in this text, a TeX program rather looks like 

\command\command parameters\command pars\command 

and so on.  Now, while I can see why to put commands on bold
violetred to distinguish them clearly from the text, putting
everything in that color for a program doesn't help but to hurt 
the eyes.

Please don't get me wrong.  I'm only trying to explain the reasons
why it isn't good to bind dtx to ltx highlighting only because we
have no dtx highlighting.  To illustrate how a dtx highlighting
should roughly look like, see eg
http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/img/auctex-screenshot-doctex.png


To summarize: 
#1: The latex highlighting does for dtx files rather the opposite of
    what it should.  (Showing the parts you get with latex *.dtx in
    hard to read blue italic all, and on the other hand overtuning the
    TeX code in probably useless coloring.)  
#2: TeX experts, and perhaps not only these, will probably think
    that the nedit folks don't know the difference between .ltx and
    .dtx, see #1.


Cheers,
Jörg