Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Could you accept the following:
Sounds good (the parts I grok, at least).
One gotcha:
LaTeX will choke on double scripts such as "A_{s}_{t}", so we can't have
two script insets in sequence. But then, what happens if you have
"A_{s}B_{t}"? and delete the B (e.g., in order to replace it by C)? The
intermediate state would be the illegal "A_{s}_{t}", but we must allow
it somehow. Possibilities:
* Allow the sequential script insets and display them similarly to
A_{s\,t}. Provide an informative error when exporting. This is the case
now, except the error is LaTeX's.
* Keep silent, export as "A_{s}{}_{t}". Problem: will be created
unintentionally and go unnoticed.
* In this special case, show an empty (blue) cell in front of the _{t},
and export as "A_{s}{}_{t}" (empty cell = "{}").
I think the last one would be best despite the unusual behavior.
Related issue:
In the situation (cursor = |)
A_{s}|
pressing '_' should take you to
A_{s|}
rather than 1.2.0cvs's
A_{|s}
or 1.1.6fix2's
A_{s}_{|}
But, in the situation
A|_{s}
pressing '_' should do the same as <down> and take you to
A_{|s}
like 1.2.0cvs does.
Regards,
Eran Tromer
