On 2015-06-06 Sat 00:28, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Titus von der Malsburg <malsburg@posteo.de> writes:
>
>> Thee can be handled by protectedtexttt.  The obvious questions is of
>> course: Wouldn’t it be more consistent to handle all instances of ~code~
>> using protectedtexttt?
>
> One option would be indeed to remove \verb altogether. Note that it is
> also used in inline source blocks. 
>
> However, I assume \verb put less limitations than \texttt on its
> contents, so I'd rather keep \verb around.
>
>> And if you want to support the use of \verb at all, shouldn’t that be
>> done via =verbatim= not ~code~?
>
> I fail to see how it would solve the problem at hand. It would simply
> move it elsewhere.

I didn’t say it would.  I said that using protectedtexttt solves
the issue in problematic environments.

The issue that =verbatim= maps to \texttt and ~code~ to \verb is
independent, but since it affects the same code, it might make
sense to solve both at the same time.

  Titus

> My question is how to handle \verb at the LaTeX level, not at the Org
> one.
>
>>>> These two did not produce the intended results (sub and super script
>>>> don’t work) but the LaTeX is not malformed:
>>>>
>>>>     test^~test~
>>>>     test_~test~
>>
>> This really seems to be an independent issue (because test^*test*
>> doesn’t work either)
>
> Actually, I just realized this is not valid syntax for sub/superscript
> in Org anyway. It should be
>
>   test^{~test~}
>
> Regards,