From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Federico Beffa <beffa@ieee.org>
Subject: [POLL] Syntax change: make \[...\] non-inline (+1)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:50:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKrPhPPnO_SGuBuvL7ZoDprHRmHm5HVX+H=29DERU1pTH2BJXw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56370)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <federico.beffa@gmail.com>) id 1XCX5g-0004U9-AM
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:51:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <federico.beffa@gmail.com>) id 1XCX5f-0002Xx-9t
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:51:00 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]:61868)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <federico.beffa@gmail.com>) id 1XCX5f-0002Xn-1s
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:50:59 -0400
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hr17so1112968lab.2
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Who is entitled to vote? If I am then here is my vote in favor for the
following reasons:

1. the construct \[...\] has been defined in LaTeX for equations which
must stand out and therefore belong on separate lines. It would
therefore make sense to conform to the borrowed syntax.

2. the alternative displaymath environment could in principle be used
instead of \[...\]. However, this is not very nice because when
exporting to a text file the former is very invasive, while latter is
not.

3. Right now the \[...\] construct when exported to LaTeX produces
equations on dedicated lines. While the same construct when exported
to a text file results in an inline equation. This is inconsistent and
would be corrected by the change.

4. There are 2 other constructs dedicated to inline equations: \(...\)
and $...$.

5. Existing documents are very easy to fix.

6. Exporting to html can be adapted to produces any desired result and
should therefore not be a concern.

Regards,
Federico