Re: [O] Exponents / subscripts

[Rasmus]

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Rasmus <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> An external library is ideal (had it existed), but where to stop?  Are
>> entities wrapped in math "supported syntax"?
>> E.g. "$\alpha\beta\gamma\delta$".
>
> No. What is inside a math snippet/environment is a black box for Org.
> Entities are a different beast that do not require a math environment
> (e.g., "\alpha" is not considered to be LaTeX code).

Bur surely the fact that $\beta$ is displayed $β$ is a consequence of
org-entities.el?  Whether desirable or not.

>> So your strategy would be to disable fontification within math (since
>> the syntax is not org), and delegate it to a separate library, say
>> tex-fold.el (which also doesn't work out-of-the-box in Org-buffers)?
>> In theory it's ideal, but consistency (e.g. supported entities) and
>> comparability is probably issues.
>
> I don't think so. No fontification at all on LaTeX code is a decent
> default in an Org buffer. Additional, exact, fontification for it is
> a nice bonus.

I would like to agree, but I get too much joy from the current
imprecise implementation.  From a practical perspective the current
state is OK and much preferable over the alternative.  IOW and IMO,
let's not touch it unless we've got something better!

>>> This doesn't solve the leak of Org's fontification on math snippets and
>>> environments.
>>
>> But it would if you can delegate parsing of math to a separate
>> library, no?
>
> No it wouldn't, because Org would still have to fontify sub/superscript
> outside math snippets. Of course, dedicated fontification could override
> leaked one, but I think this would be troublesome in some occasions.
>
> At some point, I hope to introduce the parser in the fontification
> process, which would some the problem.

Just out of curiosity, can you mention a couple of (org) function to
look at to see how fontification works?

—Rasmus

-- 
m-mm-mmm-mmmm bacon!