> Uwe Brauer <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Uwe,
> Yes, exactly. > Sorry, but I think there's no value in a feature which only works in the > simplest cases and might be wrong otherwise. Have a look at Gennady's > screenshots. I have seen his shots, these are border line cases, which are used very little. Look I have written mathematics with latex over the last 25 years and in countless occasions I have used ^or but never nested expressions and this is also true for the publications and writings I have seen in these years. I reckon that 95 % of the people writing mathematics never use nested ^. So I could understand your argument if there were 50 % non nested and 50 % nested but it is the case. Please don't move us back to the middle age. > There are examples where its completely confusing with > `multi-level' and would definitely make you read something else than > what has been written with `invisible'. What's about the following compromise: Remove multi-level, but leave invisible and add to the docstring something like Please note that invisible only works for a simple sub and superscripts. Nested constructions are not supported, in fact those can be displayed in a confusing way. If you need those constructs please do not use the invisible option. _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
