Re: [PATCH] Don't fill displayed equations

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

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.

>> 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.

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 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.
>
> ┌────
> │ Since \(\cos\) is an even function, we can negate the numerator of the argument
> │ without changing the result, giving
> │ \[
> │   \cos \left( \pi \frac{C_1-x}{2C_1+D} \right) \ , \quad C_1 = \frac{D}{2}.
> │ \]
> │ this will be positive over \(x \in (0,D)\), and so we can rewrite \(\tilde{y}\) as,
> │ \[
> │   \tilde{y}(x) = \frac{2D}{\pi} \log \cos \left( \pi \frac{\frac{D}{2}-x}{2D} \right) + C_2.
> │ \]
> │ Once again considering that \(y(0)=y(D)=0\), it is clear that
> │ \[
> │   C_2 = - \frac{2D}{\pi} \log \cos \left( \frac{\pi}{4} \right) = - \frac{2D}{\pi} \log 2^{-\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{D}{\pi} \log 2.
> │ \]
> │ The complete solution for \(\tilde{y}\) is hence,
> │ \[
> │   \tilde{y} = \frac{2D}{\pi} \log \cos \left( \pi \frac{D-2x}{4D} \right) + \frac{D}{\pi} \log 2.
> │ \]
> └────

In every case above, you can already use
\begin{equation*}...\end{equation*}, so I don't see the point. You
already have all you need without breaking filling function for the rest
of us.

> Basically, this leads to a worse experience when using Org in what
> I would think to be a perfectly reasonably way.

I don't think it is a worse experience, unless you apply expectations
from LaTeX to Org. It just doesn't work. Notwithstanding filling
behaviour, \[...\] in Org is much more limited than \[...\] in LaTeX.
They just happen to use the same syntax for convenience in simple cases.
The same holds for, e.g., LaTeX commands. To put it differently, you
cannot just paste some LaTeX code in an Org buffer and expect Org to
properly deal with it. But that's fine. If you need to write or copy
"advanced" LaTeX code, Org provides dedicated environments.

Regards,