On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:29 AM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> Hello, > > Ethan Ligon <li...@are.berkeley.edu> writes: > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:47 PM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr > > > > wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> Ethan Ligon <li...@berkeley.edu> writes: > >> > >> > I've long used the following construction for displayed equations in > org > >> > # > >> > \[ > >> > u_i(c)=p_i\lambda > >> > \] > >> > # > >> > which (i) gives nice space for reading equations in the org-source, > and > >> > (ii) nicely protects the display equation from (fill-paragraph) and > >> > friends. > >> > > >> > However, exporting with this construction *stopped* working after > commit > >> > 53a4209; what happens now is that ox.el replaces the # with a blank > line, > >> > breaking my single paragraph into three. > >> > >> I see only one paragraph above. Could you elaborate a bit? > >> > > > > Sure. If I export the above using ox-ascii, I obtain, in part: > > > > #+begin_example > > I've long used the following construction for displayed equations in org > > > > \[ u_i(c)=p_i\lambda \] > > > > which (i) gives nice space for reading equations in the org-source, and > > (ii) nicely protects the display equation from (fill-paragraph) and > > friends. > > #+end_example > > Actually this is consistent with the Org document. As explained > somewhere else in this thread, comments separate elements (e.g., > paragraphs). They cannot be inlined within a paragraph. This is exactly > what happens in the output. > > I think you are simply mis-using comments in this particular case. > > > Point taken, and I appreciate that you must have thought about this > quite > s> a lot. But I still wish for the old behavior, which would have simply > > deleted the # comment line. > > > > This would break SW's footnote example, but perhaps that (contrived? > maybe > > I don't understand his use case) problem could be addressed by changing > > the documentation. Right now the docs say that a footnote > > > > "ends at the next footnote definition, headline, or after two consecutive > > empty lines." > > > > Why not just change to > > > > "ends at the next footnote definition, headline, or two empty lines > > (consecutive, or with a comment)." > > This is not related to footnote syntax. We could find a similar example > in, e.g., plain lists. The problem is simply that comment syntax doesn't > fit for your use-case. > That's fair. That was simply a work-around I'd developed that worked until a few weeks ago, to solve the deeper problem you identify below... > > The simplest solution is to write a function handling commented lines > the way you want them to be handled and add it to > `org-export-before-processing-hook', e.g. (untested), > > (defun my-handle-comments () > (while (re-search-forward "^[ \t]*#\\( \\|$\\)" nil t) > (let ((element (org-element-at-point))) > (when (eq (org-element-type element) 'comment) > (delete-region (org-element-property :begin element) > (progn (goto-char (org-element-property :end > element)) > (skip-chars-backward " \t\n") > (line-beginning-position 2))))))) > Thanks! I really appreciate the help. > > Also, I have a dusty patch somewhere that promotes \[...\] and $$...$$ > to the rank of elements and prevent them from being filled. However, it > also means that these constructs are not recognized as math snippets > within a line anymore, e.g., > > Text \[1+1\] ... > > I'm not sure how much of an issue it is. Hence the dust. > > Well, I most certainly vote for applying your dusty patch. In my (admittedly LaTeX-centric) view the whole point of the distinction between \(\) and \[\] is that the former is meant to be an in-line construct, while the latter is meant to indicate a typographically distinct element. Thanks, -Ethan
