On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 07:16:20PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 07:21:22PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > It already doesn't work for @math but we nevertheless encourage it. > > The long term solution is probably to convert to TeX/LaTeX inside > > of @math. It seems a bit strange to me to treat @math and @displaymath > > differently in that regard. > > Since @displaymath is a new command, there's no need to support @sup or > @sub inside it, whereas there are already documents using @sup inside of > @math. It would be hard to remove support for this, but perhaps a warning > could be given, encouraging use of ^ or _ instead.
Then, the documentation should be modified to be clearer that no @-commands are expected in @displaymath, right now there is nothing said, such that it appears as if what is said about @math is also valid for @displaymath. -- Pat
