From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>
Subject: Re: plus in superscript.
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:19:08 -0400
Message-ID: <424.1316071148@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org>
References: <x.piter@gmail.com>
	<CAKMLjj6k47VNevn-pZ59_hRGKuD1i=LXA4pwaw+8Tu_UAgWYZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<18354.1316019331@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org>
	<CAMXnza3ZP1b9S+HQdmkmgpjUqn0Ggik5VJTMjAQ95HeekejbYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:54704)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nick@dokosmarshall.org>) id 1R46E4-0000Kh-6B
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:19:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nick@dokosmarshall.org>) id 1R46E3-00039l-8o
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:19:12 -0400
Received: from g1t0028.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.35]:32425)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nick@dokosmarshall.org>) id 1R46E3-00039Z-0n
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:19:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: Message from suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com> of "Thu,
	15 Sep 2011 00:29:29 +0200."
	<CAMXnza3ZP1b9S+HQdmkmgpjUqn0Ggik5VJTMjAQ95HeekejbYQ@mail.gmail.com>
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: </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: suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com>
Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Piter_ <x.piter@gmail.com>

suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
> > * This is a test: \(T^{+}\)
> 
> Apart from what Christian said, do you have any comments about $..$
> and \(..\) ? I hear conflicting arguments about which is preferred
> (e.g. $..$ is a TeX construct where as \(..\) is a LaTeX macro arguing
> in favour of $..$). Specially an opinion in the context of org ->
> latex export would be interesting to hear.
> 

As far as LaTeX is concerned, I believe that $...$ and \(...\) are
entirely equivalent (but you have to use \[...\], and not $$...$$ for
displayed material). That's from reading Lamport's book: sec 3.3 and
Appendix E (the "Miscellaneous" section); I have not checked the code.

I prefer \(...\) and (iirc) sometimes that has worked when $...$ has
not, but I don't remember the context; afaik those (rare) situations
were deemed to be bugs in the exporter and have all been fixed.

Nick