On 2015-06-06 Sat 00:28, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Titus von der Malsburg <[email protected]> writes: > >> Thee can be handled by protectedtexttt. The obvious questions is of >> course: Wouldn’t it be more consistent to handle all instances of ~code~ >> using protectedtexttt? > > One option would be indeed to remove \verb altogether. Note that it is > also used in inline source blocks. > > However, I assume \verb put less limitations than \texttt on its > contents, so I'd rather keep \verb around. > >> And if you want to support the use of \verb at all, shouldn’t that be >> done via =verbatim= not ~code~? > > I fail to see how it would solve the problem at hand. It would simply > move it elsewhere.
I didn’t say it would. I said that using protectedtexttt solves
the issue in problematic environments.
The issue that =verbatim= maps to \texttt and ~code~ to \verb is
independent, but since it affects the same code, it might make
sense to solve both at the same time.
Titus
> My question is how to handle \verb at the LaTeX level, not at the Org
> one.
>
>>>> These two did not produce the intended results (sub and super script
>>>> don’t work) but the LaTeX is not malformed:
>>>>
>>>> test^~test~
>>>> test_~test~
>>
>> This really seems to be an independent issue (because test^*test*
>> doesn’t work either)
>
> Actually, I just realized this is not valid syntax for sub/superscript
> in Org anyway. It should be
>
> test^{~test~}
>
> Regards,
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
