From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aaron Ecay Subject: Re: [parser] subscripts and underlines interacting badly Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:42:28 -0500 Message-ID: <87ob4lkhmo.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87ppp415n4.fsf@gmail.com> <87bo0nu79v.fsf@gmail.com> <87haaf1bgi.fsf@gmail.com> <8761qvxg2o.fsf@gmail.com> <87r49ik0qw.fsf@gmail.com> <87txeevus8.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46966) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrC9Z-00052I-Nz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:42:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrC9N-00021E-9O for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:42:33 -0500 Received: from mail-qa0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231]:62685) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrC9N-00021A-4d for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:42:21 -0500 Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id ii20so58400qab.15 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:42:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87txeevus8.fsf@gmail.com> 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: Nicolas Goaziou , "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" Hi Nicolas, 2013ko abenudak 12an, Nicolas Goaziou-ek idatzi zuen: > > We could give priority to underline when there are no curly brackets, > priority to subscript otherwise. It sounds overly complicated though. Your last sentence sounds very close to "don=E2=80=99t do it; I won=E2=80= =99t accept such a patch." Is that so? [...] > > Again, `org-use-sub-superscripts' is, at the moment, a visual-only > variable. My plan is to move it out, not in. Just to be sure I understand: 1. You have a plan to get rid of org-use-sub-superscripts. You might also want to get rid of `org-export-with-sub-superscripts' (depending on how one interprets your remark that the variable "do[es]n't make much sense anyway"). Also, other parts of org (e.g. the parser) cannot change to harmonize with these variables. This means that these variables are de facto deprecated, and org is headed to a future where sub/superscripts are non-optional and non-configurable. 2. The current (non-optional, non-configurable) implementation of X-scripts by the parser has specifically identifiable defects, such as the one I mentioned whereby '_foo_, perhaps naturally interpreted as underlining (among other reasons because of how it is highlighted by org) is "really" a subscript. 3. These inconsistencies cannot (or ought not) be addressed except by some notional change to org syntax, which only you can (ought) make, and which you=E2=80=99re not willing to discuss except in negative terms ("don=E2=80=99t do it that way"). I hope you realize why this situation might be frustrating to a user and attempted contributor. Thanks, Aaron PS I guess you might be frustrated too. You mentioned your previous proposal about changing the regex which recognized X-scripts. I read the thread at the time, and didn=E2=80=99t say anything because I didn=E2= =80=99t have a strong opinion one way or the other; it simply looked like a reasonable, incremental change and you were getting positive feedback. I=E2=80=99ve re= -read the thread, and FWIW I think you should install the change, if you have not done so. I again don=E2=80=99t have an opinion on the question about grouping with parentheses which was left hanging at the end of the thread. Coming from a latex background, it would never occur to me to use parentheses to bracket an X-script. So it would not bother me if you removed parenthesis-grouping as it seems you want to do. PPS Also FWIW and again coming from a latex background, I think that "bare" X-scripts such as a_b are always somewhat suspect. I would be happy if org required brackets for X-scripts, always. I think this would simplify the parsing problem a lot. But I don=E2=80=99t know if this could have support enough to be implemented. -- Aaron Ecay