Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Hello, > > Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes: > >> An external library is ideal (had it existed), but where to stop? Are >> entities wrapped in math "supported syntax"? >> E.g. "$\alpha\beta\gamma\delta$". > > No. What is inside a math snippet/environment is a black box for Org. > Entities are a different beast that do not require a math environment > (e.g., "\alpha" is not considered to be LaTeX code).
Bur surely the fact that $\beta$ is displayed $β$ is a consequence of org-entities.el? Whether desirable or not. >> So your strategy would be to disable fontification within math (since >> the syntax is not org), and delegate it to a separate library, say >> tex-fold.el (which also doesn't work out-of-the-box in Org-buffers)? >> In theory it's ideal, but consistency (e.g. supported entities) and >> comparability is probably issues. > > I don't think so. No fontification at all on LaTeX code is a decent > default in an Org buffer. Additional, exact, fontification for it is > a nice bonus. I would like to agree, but I get too much joy from the current imprecise implementation. From a practical perspective the current state is OK and much preferable over the alternative. IOW and IMO, let's not touch it unless we've got something better! >>> This doesn't solve the leak of Org's fontification on math snippets and >>> environments. >> >> But it would if you can delegate parsing of math to a separate >> library, no? > > No it wouldn't, because Org would still have to fontify sub/superscript > outside math snippets. Of course, dedicated fontification could override > leaked one, but I think this would be troublesome in some occasions. > > At some point, I hope to introduce the parser in the fontification > process, which would some the problem. Just out of curiosity, can you mention a couple of (org) function to look at to see how fontification works? —Rasmus -- m-mm-mmm-mmmm bacon!
