From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: heroxbd@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] curly nested latex fragments Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:38:59 +0900 Message-ID: <86k37zi63g.fsf@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> References: <86simqocpz.fsf@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> <878uoiy3bd.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <86pphshr82.fsf_-_@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> <87simng6tw.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35016) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1Pck-0005Ge-L1 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 20:39:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1Pcg-0003nL-1L for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 20:39:10 -0400 Received: from woodpecker.gentoo.org ([2001:470:ea4a:1:214:c2ff:fe64:b2d3]:37154 helo=smtp.gentoo.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1Pcf-0003my-Nw for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 20:39:05 -0400 Received: from moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp (ernie02-dmz.awa.tohoku.ac.jp [130.34.99.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: heroxbd) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCD9334011E for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:39:03 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <87simng6tw.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:53:47 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > heroxbd@gentoo.org writes: > >> Nesting braces is already implemented in the classic org-latex.el[1], >> and is forward ported into org-element.el. > > Thanks for your patch. > > I think you are misunderstanding something. I didn't port this > limitation in Org 8. AFAIK it has been there for a long time. See > `org-inside-latex-macro-p' for example. > The main problem with Org < 8 is that every exporter implemented its own > parser for the Org buffer. As you can see, "org-latex.el" was in > contradiction with "org.el". I see, the regex used for latex protection (in org-latex.el) and footnote guarding (org-footnotes.el org.el) are different. >> Would you like to take a look at the attached patch? Thanks. > > I do not mind extending syntax for LaTeX macros a bit if it helps users, > but first, I would like a clear definition of what subset of macros > should be supported in Org. > > See, for example, > > http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html#Entities_and_LaTeX_Fragments \ce{^{238}U} falls into \NAME POST, doesn't it? > Also, I do not want to add constructs like > > "\\(?:<[^<>\n]*>\\)*" > > in this definition, as this isn't supported even in > `TeX-find-macro-end-helper' (from auctex), which I consider as > a reference for macro syntax (i.e. we shouldn't support more than what > is supports). Ha, I don't even aware of <...> syntex as a part of the LaTeX macro; I just copied the regex from org-latex.el. So let's strip it out, and advise the users to use explicit LaTeX block for <...> constructs. + (looking-at (concat + "\\\\\\([a-zA-Z]+\\*?\\)" + "\\(?:\\[[^][\n]*?\\]\\)*" + "\\(" (org-create-multibrace-regexp "{" "}" 3) "\\)\\{1,3\\}")) > Eventually, please note that this imply to change not only > "org-element.el", but also "org.el" and possibly other parts where the > limitation is encoded. But first, we need to agree on what exactly > a valid a LaTeX macro is in Org. `org-inside-latex-macro-p' for example? Yeah, definitely. >> If \ce{^2H} works as above, it is not a problem for me. Although make >> it configurable is more user-friendly; "^:{}" is already there afterall, >> adding another style feels natural. > > It's not about adding another style. "^:{}" allows less (without > changing syntax, because the limitation is done at the export level), > you want to allow more, which implies to change syntax. I don't want the > latter to be configurable. > > I explained in this thread why it wasn't possible, for the time being, > to allow a blank character before sub or superscript. This was discussed > on this ML, you may want to search archives. Do you mean this[2] and this[3] threads? I've read them through, and remotely understood the difficulty coming from the ambiguity of the syntax. And as discussed above, the difficulty manifests in the definition of LaTeX fragments, too. It is frustrating to deal with these corner cases, making a well-designed parser framework unnecessary complex. At the same time, these syntax sugar is great. And that's the reason why we prefer org-mode in composing LaTeX to pristine LaTeX. There is a sincere need to compromise the cleanness of the implementation for the sake of an ambiguous-but-human-intuitive syntax. To resolve this dilemma, we need a formal (mathematically rigorous) org syntex specification, like the rules drafted in http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html#Entities_and_LaTeX_Fragments together with a set of test suites to demonstrate the spec. There would be a lot of work, but we could start from embedded LaTeX fragments and super(sub)scripts/underline. It might be mentally overwhelming for one single guy to do the spec and the implementation at the same time, because they require different mindsets. The spec is long term and should be stable while the implementation is always being optimized. After all, it is considered good practice to make the two processes independent to each other. What do you think? Yours, Benda 1. http://orgmode.org/w/?p=org-mode.git;a=commit;h=88cf58802cc35dee2bc8ff8633b5c842fa7a23b3 2. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/79735 3. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/85902