Re: (Feature Request) have org-edit-special work inside non-environment LaTeX blocks, i.e. \( \) and \[ \]

[Timothy]

Nicolas <address@hidden> writes:

>> <#multipart type=alternative><#part type=text/plain>
>  
> Please don't send HTML.

Appologies, I'm trying to use org-msg for emails, which should be off
for replying to plaintext, but I seem to have odd things happen now and
then ... as you have noticed.

So, I'm trying to keep things plaintext, but unfortunately there
everything isn't quite functioning as intended (for example, mu4e was
unable to open this email, and I have no idea why).

While I may be spending too much time on Email and not enough on Org :P
I'd be interested to hear what the aversion to mime multipart is? I have
only a basic working understanding, but my impression was that in
functioned as a 'best of both worlds' type thing.


> Yes, this particular change would be harmless. But you don't need
> `org-edit-special' to change that. Moreover you cannot allow this
> without allowing any change. So, let's not do that.
>  
>> To be honest I don’t quite see this point, in both cases it’s just
>> a LaTeX buffer…
>  
> No, it's not. It is a part of an Org document that happens to be handled
> by LaTeX. IOW, there is context around the object that doesn't belong to
> LaTeX.
>  
> `org-edit-special' focuses on contents, not structure. For example, you
> cannot change the number of the footnote definition being edited from
> `org-edit-special'. This should also be the case here.

Heh. And I was most of the way through tweaking
`org-edit-latex-fragment' to detech when inline was changed to an
environment and insert newlines if necesary to ensure that the \begin
and \end statements are on their own line.

I neglected to consider that org is likely doing context caching etc.
and so complicating things. I still like the idea that this can be
changed in the minibuffer (in my case because I have nice LaTeX-mode
configurations for changing these sorts of things more easily that I do
in org mode). However I don't like the sound of the extra complexity any
more than you do. I'll leave this be, and see if I can get the read-only
locking working for now :) I think I've got everything else as it should
be, so I should be sending in a patch for feedback shortly :)

Timothy.