Re: [DISCUSSION] What should we do with undocumented x^(superscript inside /round/ braces) syntax?
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Upon further examination, I found that ^:{} does accept _only_ curly
> braces:
> ...
> So, round braces can be seen as another variant of DWIM behavior.
>
> I conclude that there is no reason to change the existing syntax.
>
> I will need to update `org-use-sub-superscripts' docstring and
> https://orgmode.org/worg/org-syntax.html#Subscript_and_Superscript to
> document this special case.
>
> Maybe also update the manual section 12.3 Subscripts and Superscripts.
All done on main.
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git/commit/?id=36d092804
https://git.sr.ht/~bzg/worg/commit/834ac25e
Closed.
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at ,
or support my work at
Re: [DISCUSSION] What should we do with undocumented x^(superscript inside /round/ braces) syntax?
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> "Fraga, Eric" writes:
>
>> On Saturday, 17 Feb 2024 at 14:06, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>>> Inconsistent with LaTeX syntax, Org mode not only allows
>>> x^{superscript}, but also x^(superscript) with round braces used for
>>> grouping.
>>
>> Inconsistent with LaTeX is not a sufficient reason for removing this, in
>> my opinion. Org has /dwim/ elements which make it easier to write some
>> expressions than in LaTeX. Another example is ~x^-1~ which works as I
>> want but would make no sense in LaTeX (where only the "-" would be
>> superscripted, not the 1).
>
> Good point.
> Although, do note that unlike x^word, x^(some text) is not documented.
> Moreover, options like ^:{} create an impression that only curly braces
> are accepted.
Upon further examination, I found that ^:{} does accept _only_ curly
braces:
#+options: ^:{}
x^word
x^{word}
x^(word)
yields (in latex export):
x\^{}word
x\textsuperscript{word}
x\^{}(word)
So, round braces can be seen as another variant of DWIM behavior.
I conclude that there is no reason to change the existing syntax.
I will need to update `org-use-sub-superscripts' docstring and
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-syntax.html#Subscript_and_Superscript to
document this special case.
Maybe also update the manual section 12.3 Subscripts and Superscripts.
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at ,
or support my work at
Re: [DISCUSSION] What should we do with undocumented x^(superscript inside /round/ braces) syntax?
"Fraga, Eric" writes:
> On Saturday, 17 Feb 2024 at 14:06, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>> Inconsistent with LaTeX syntax, Org mode not only allows
>> x^{superscript}, but also x^(superscript) with round braces used for
>> grouping.
>
> Inconsistent with LaTeX is not a sufficient reason for removing this, in
> my opinion. Org has /dwim/ elements which make it easier to write some
> expressions than in LaTeX. Another example is ~x^-1~ which works as I
> want but would make no sense in LaTeX (where only the "-" would be
> superscripted, not the 1).
Good point.
Although, do note that unlike x^word, x^(some text) is not documented.
Moreover, options like ^:{} create an impression that only curly braces
are accepted.
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at ,
or support my work at
Re: [DISCUSSION] What should we do with undocumented x^(superscript inside /round/ braces) syntax?
On Saturday, 17 Feb 2024 at 14:06, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> Inconsistent with LaTeX syntax, Org mode not only allows
> x^{superscript}, but also x^(superscript) with round braces used for
> grouping.
Inconsistent with LaTeX is not a sufficient reason for removing this, in
my opinion. Org has /dwim/ elements which make it easier to write some
expressions than in LaTeX. Another example is ~x^-1~ which works as I
want but would make no sense in LaTeX (where only the "-" would be
superscripted, not the 1).
--
: Eric S Fraga, with org release_9.6.18-1158-g8e2ed4 in Emacs 30.0.50
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
