From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [Bug] ~Verbatim~ in headlines breaks LaTeX Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 01:20:45 +0200 Message-ID: <87pp58v2ya.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87382eg2f4.fsf@posteo.de> <87617a65y5.fsf@alphaville.usersys.redhat.com> <87vbfa63ud.fsf@posteo.de> <87wpzqxz9m.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87twuu5bzv.fsf@posteo.de> <87r3px5ee3.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <877fri6jl7.fsf@posteo.de> <87a8wdongv.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <878ubx224x.fsf@posteo.de> <87eglpjnxv.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <20150606221551.GI3455@chitra.no-ip.org> 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]:54819) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z1NN0-0005ex-I4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:19:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z1NMz-0007gz-Cg for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:19:18 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::195]:37085) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z1NMz-0007gt-6F for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:19:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150606221551.GI3455@chitra.no-ip.org> (Suvayu Ali's message of "Sun, 7 Jun 2015 00:15:51 +0200") 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: Suvayu Ali Cc: Nick Dokos , Titus von der Malsburg , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Suvayu Ali writes: > On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 09:28:12AM +0200, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> Titus von der Malsburg writes: >>=20 >> > Thee can be handled by protectedtexttt. The obvious questions is of >> > course: Wouldn=E2=80=99t it be more consistent to handle all instances= of ~code~ >> > using protectedtexttt? >>=20 >> One option would be indeed to remove \verb altogether. Note that it is >> also used in inline source blocks.=20 >>=20 >> However, I assume \verb put less limitations than \texttt on its >> contents, so I'd rather keep \verb around. > > This TeX.SX post discourages the use of \verb. > > http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/83894/4416 > > It cites the following FAQ from UK TeX. > > http://www.TeX.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=3Dverbwithin > > Maybe it is worth to consider dropping \verb entirely? Done in b8ade2e79e92dad10f2b045bc55fbeaf133e5598. Thanks to you both. Regards,