Re: [DISCUSSION] What should we do with undocumented x^(superscript inside /round/ braces) syntax? (was: Subscript with parenthesis)
> On Feb 17, 2024, at 5:33 AM, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > > WDYT? +1 I use the curly braces since I often use underscores for other reasons. There would be no impact to me and this is the first I ever heard that parentheses would work.
Re: [DISCUSSION] What should we do with undocumented x^(superscript inside /round/ braces) syntax? (was: Subscript with parenthesis)
+1 Tom > On Feb 17, 2024, at 9:38 AM, William Denton wrote: > > On Saturday, February 17th, 2024 at 07:07, Ihor Radchenko > wrote: > >> I tentatively propose to remove the x^(2-i) example from the docstring >> and mark the ^(...) syntax deprecated. >> >> WDYT? > > I think it's very sensible. It's surprising ^(...) works like this, and if > anyone was using it (perhaps by accident) it will be easy to change when > necessary. > > > Bill > > -- > William Denton > https://www.miskatonic.org/ > Librarian, artist and licensed private investigator. > Toronto, Canada > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] What should we do with undocumented x^(superscript inside /round/ braces) syntax? (was: Subscript with parenthesis)
On Saturday, February 17th, 2024 at 07:07, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > I tentatively propose to remove the x^(2-i) example from the docstring > and mark the ^(...) syntax deprecated. > > WDYT? I think it's very sensible. It's surprising ^(...) works like this, and if anyone was using it (perhaps by accident) it will be easy to change when necessary. Bill -- William Denton https://www.miskatonic.org/ Librarian, artist and licensed private investigator. Toronto, Canada
[DISCUSSION] What should we do with undocumented x^(superscript inside /round/ braces) syntax? (was: Subscript with parenthesis)
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> "Tom Alexander" writes:
>
>> Some additional things I'm noticing:
>>
>> - when using parenthesis, :use-brackets-p is nil, so they're not equivalent
>> to curly braces.
>
> `org-element-subscript-parser' uses `org-match-substring-regexp', which
> indeed allows foo_(...). This is not documented in org-syntax.org and in
> the manual (12.3 Subscripts and Superscripts).
Inconsistent with LaTeX syntax, Org mode not only allows
x^{superscript}, but also x^(superscript) with round braces used for
grouping.
This does not seem to be documented in the manual and is only vaguely
mentioned in the `org-use-sub-superscripts' docstring in a single
example:
x_{i^2} or x^(2-i)braces or parenthesis do grouping.
The rest of the docstring only refers to {} or just to genetic "braces".
This situation is awkward, because such subtle inconsistency between Org
and LaTeX syntax can be very surprising.
To demonstrate, try to export the following to pdf:
# ---
Direct latex code =$foo^(bar)$= :: @@latex:$foo^(bar)$@@
Org mode markup =foo^(bar)= :: foo^(bar)
# ---
The first line will only create superscript for "(", while the second
line will make the whole "(bar)" into superscript.
-
I tentatively propose to remove the x^(2-i) example from the docstring
and mark the ^(...) syntax deprecated.
WDYT?
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at ,
or support my work at
