Rasmus <rasmus <at> gmx.us> writes:
>
> Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Rasmus <rasmus <at> gmx.us> writes:
> >
> >> What's wrong with equation (potentially coupled with mathtools for
> >> handling numbering automatically)? Is it worth breaking old documents
> >> (irrespective of org-lint) for this inconvenience?
> >
> > Actually, the idea behind this patch is to mimic the expected LaTeX
> > behaviour,i.e., treat \[..\] as an equivalent
> > to \begin{equation*}...\end{equation*}.
> >
> > This was requested at least once before, so I guess it may make sense
to
> > follow the path of least surprise.
>
> And I'm saying that people should just write:
>
> #+latex_header: \usepackage{mathtools} \mathtoolsset{showonlyrefs}
> aaa
> \begin{equation}
> bbb
> \end{equation}
> ccc
>
> Org isn't LaTeX and there’s no difference in the output from \[⋯\]
> and \begin{equation*}⋯\end{equation*} or the above.
>
> Nonetheless, I don't feel strongly about the (non)issue so if this
> behavior is better, somehow, go for it.
>
> Rasmus
>
At the risk of sounding flip, I've gotta say that the question of whether
#+begin_example
aaa
\[
bbb
\]
ccc
#+end_example
is "somehow better" than
#+begin_example
#+latex_header: \usepackage{mathtools} \mathtoolsset{showonlyrefs}
aaa
\begin{equation}
bbb
\end{equation}
ccc
#+end_example
sort of answers itself. It's not so much that we must make Org mimic
LaTeX; it's that people actually use Org to compose documents with
equations, and making this easier and simpler is a good thing.
-Ethan
