On 2015-11-04, at 09:24, Nicolas Richard <youngf...@members.fsf.org> wrote:
> Hi Marcin,
>
> Marcin Borkowski <mb...@mbork.pl> writes:
>> No it doesn't. I discovered this today. This is a perfectly valid
>> formula, for which forward-sexp doesn't work: $(0,1\rangle$.
>
> I worked around it by doing things like:
> \DeclarePairedDelimiter{\intercc}{[}{]}
> \DeclarePairedDelimiter{\interoo}{]}{[}
> \DeclarePairedDelimiter{\interco}{[}{[}
> \DeclarePairedDelimiter{\interoc}{]}{]}
>
> and then using \interoo{0,1} in the text. Bonus : I can change to
> another notation whenever I want, e.g. :
>
> \DeclarePairedDelimiter{\intercc}{[}{]}
> \DeclarePairedDelimiter{\interco}{[}{)}
> \DeclarePairedDelimiter{\interoo}{(}{)}
> \DeclarePairedDelimiter{\interoc}{(}{]}
>
> (the former is classical notation for intervals in french, the latter is
> classical notation pretty much everywhere else, I guess)
And this is a very good idea, but AUCTeX should not impose it on the
user. Whether we like it or not, $(0,1\rangle$ is correct LaTeX, and
should be handled.
Best,
--
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University
_______________________________________________
auctex-devel mailing list
auctex-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
