Re: [PATCH] Don't fill displayed equations

[Timothy]

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I think there are also some relevant points which I haven’t mentioned so far,
>> separate from my thoughts that since we’re using the LaTeX syntax we should 
>> be
>> consistent with how LaTeX treats this.
>
> I'm not convinced about this. I don't think it is even possible.

By this, I'm specifically thinking of the fact that \( ... \) is inline,
and \[ ... \] is a display equation. What's the point of Org having both
if they're treated the same in "org syntax", on top of the inconstancy
that creates with HTML, LaTeX exports etc. where it is once again
treated as a display equation? Perhaps the discussion should shift from
my specific patch to this general situation, but this behaviour feels
wrong to me.

>>> As I wrote above, they do not belong to the same category of syntax.
>>> There’s no reason to special case ....
>>
>> I think we already do special-case `\[ ... \]' somewhat. When refer to inline
>> elements like bold, verbatim, italic, etc. they sit in the text. 
>> Semantically,
>> this doesn’t hold for `\[ ... \]' either. The semantically inline maths 
>> element is
>> `\( ... \)'. Considering other “inline” syntax elements, like bold, verbatim,
>> italic, etc. if you spread the delimiters across multiple lines that doesn’t
>> work. So I’d argue the ship has already sailed on treating `\[ ... \]' 
>> differently
>> to other inline elements.
>
> I'm not sure about what you mean. \[...\] is no different than, e.g.,
> verbatim. It's an inline element, with all that it implies.

Is it? I can't use verbatim like this:

=
some
verbatim
text
=

but I can do

\[
some
display
equation
\]

It seems to me that \[ ... \] is already treated differently from other
inline markup.

> Now, if you want to discuss changing syntax for \[...\] and make it
> a block element, you can of course do it to your heart's content (it has
> been discussed already in this ML and I don't have an opinion on the
> subject), but please don't make filling do bizarre things (not all Org
> users use LaTeX or even like LaTeXisms), just because LaTeX modes behave
> differently.

If that's the only way that Org could treat \[ ... \] differently from
\( ... \), I'd be strongly in favour of this.

>> If you’re wondering why I’m so opposed to the current behaviour, that is 
>> probably
>> best explained by a more realistic demo that what I have in the commit 
>> message.
>> [*snip*]
> In every case above, you can already use
> \begin{equation*}...\end{equation*}, so I don't see the point.

I prefer \[ ... \] over \begin{equation*}...\end{equation*} as it's much
more succinct, and helps reduce the "markup noise" in my documents. I
don't think this is an insignificant concern, brevity may not be
something I'm very good at in emails 😛 but is something I look for in
syntax.

> You already have all you need without breaking filling function for
> the rest of us.

I must admit, I don't see the downside here --- how does this break the
filling function for the rest of you? This only affects \[ ... \] blocks
that have already been put on their own line.

> I don't think it is a worse experience, unless you apply expectations
> from LaTeX to Org. It just doesn't work.

Why can't we apply LaTeX expectations to LaTeX elements in Org? Applying
LaTeX expectations to Org as a whole is clearly a silly idea, but Org
copies \[ .. \] from LaTeX and it is a LaTeX construct.

> Notwithstanding filling behaviour, \[...\] in Org is much more limited
> than \[...\] in LaTeX.

I'd be curious to hear how, as I personally haven't run into any
instances where \[ ... \] has behaved differently other than when an
environment starts on a new line in of a \[ ... \] block (which can
easily be fixed by putting something like \!\ at the start of the line).

> If you need to write or copy "advanced" LaTeX code, Org provides
> dedicated environments.

I don't want "advanced" LaTeX code, I just want my display equations to
be treated as display equations consistently 😂.

Anyway, thanks for engaging with this Nicolas. Even if my patch is a bad
idea, I hope that by the end of this conversation we may arrive at an
agreement on how \[ ... \] should be treated.

--
Timothy