Hi Marcin,

Marcin Borkowski <mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:
> On 2014-11-27, at 10:26, Andreas Leha wrote:
>> Marcin Borkowski <mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:
>>> Just my 2 cents: I'd go for LaTeX if heavy math typesetting is involved
>>> (then amsmath!), maybe for Org otherwise, check whether the template
>>> imposes a many-file structure (which it probably doesn't), and keep
>>> everything in one file.
>> I would disagree here.  I do not see, that writing equations in LaTeX is
>> substantially easier than in org.  Or put the other way round: org's
>> support for equations is quite good.
>> And preview-latex is really speeding me up.
> You're right, mostly.  My point was that with displayed equations (in
> amsmath, since core LaTeX lacks a lot in this department), AUCTeX has at
> least one nice thing: C-u C-c C-e.  (Also, plain C-c C-e.)  Both very
> handy.  (As for preview-LaTeX; in AUCTeX, you also have folding, which
> looks worse, but is faster - at least I guess so, I hardly ever use it.)
> (C-c C-e inserts an environment, with autocompletion.  With prefix
> argument it /changes/ the surrounding environment.)

Are you aware of org-cdlatex-mode [1]?  That provides some similar

> Also, Richard's post made me realize why I prefer to stay with LaTeX: I
> know it way better than Elisp (even though I'm making progress), and in
> case of troubles, I can more easily deal with them in LaTeX (though
> vertical positioning of things on the page - especially trying to
> typeset on a grid - still beats me).

I agree here.  And some of my org documents admittedly look more like
latex documents ...


[1] http://orgmode.org/manual/CDLaTeX-mode.html#CDLaTeX-mode

Reply via email to