Rudolf Adamkovič <salu...@me.com> writes: > Let $r_i$ denote the \(i\)-th rotation of $t$ with a suffix of $\ell|t|$ > characters deleted, for […] > > Me, if I could, I would pay money for this feature, for it would allow > me to use $$ consistently, focusing on mathematics instead of markup > idiosyncrasies of "rotation $i$" versus "\(i\)-th rotation".
Would it improve things for you if we change how \(...\) _looks_ in Org buffers? The problem with parsing is more than just supporting $i$-th and similar. For example, AMS style guide explicitly advises against using $i$-th in favour of $i$th [1]: Do not hyphenate “th” expressions: xth, not x-th or xth . We can theoretically make a change to support "-", but then it will be logical to support $i$th as well. (If we don't some users will still be confused after trying to write $i$th and then not getting the expected results). In this question, it would make sense to implement all-or-everything approach. Otherwise, confusion (like raised in this thread) will be inevitable. However, from point of view of Org mode parser, supporting $i$th is a nightmare. Remember that Org mode is _not_ LaTeX and we have to support a lot more frivolous syntax (even in LaTeX, runaway $ is often a source of cryptic compilation errors). Currently, we _must_ rely on heuristics to determine $$-style latex fragments. I do not know any way to support $$ syntax without creating deviations from LaTeX. Extending the heuristics will not resolve the underlying ambiguity of $$ syntax, just hide it within even more obscure cases. Given the raised concerns, may we solve the issue with too verbose \(...\) unambiguous syntax using the following approach: 1. Fontify \(...\) replacing the brackets with a single character. For example: \(...\) -> ⁅...⁆ 2. Provide convenient way to input \(\) brackets through electric-pair-mode or trough org-cdlatex-mode. Best, Ihor [1] https://www.ams.org/publications/authors/AMS-StyleGuide-online.pdf