Hello, Paul Stansell <paulstans...@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm sorry, but I don't fully understand your explanation as I don't > know what you mean by an "element" in this context? See: http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html > Also, am I missing something about the latex? Do you want to be able > to use display style maths inside a sentence (ie. avoid placing the > maths on a new line but have it formatted in display style)? That > would seem strange as that's not what it's for. I don't, therefore, > see why anyone would want to write > > Some text \[1+1\] and some other text I do sometimes. I like compact text in my Org file, even though I know the output will be different (and intend it to) when exported. Let me try again with another example: Some text... \[1+1\] Some other text... will not be possible anymore either. I like to use \[...\] for one liners and \begin{equation*} ... \end{equation*} for more complicated formulas. > I agree with you there. It's not a big deal type, but I do think > > \[ > 1+1 > \[ > > looks a lot nicer and cleaner in the org file than > > \begin{displaymath} > 1+1 > \end{displaymath} Of course but \[1+1\] is a lot nicer than \[ 1+1 \] and \begin{equation*} u(x) = \begin{cases} \exp{x} & \text{if } x \geq 0 \\ 1 & \text{if } x < 0 \end{cases} \end{equation*} is (arguably) nicer than \[ u(x) = \begin{cases} \exp{x} & \text{if } x \geq 0 \\ 1 & \text{if } x < 0 \end{cases} \] Anyway, it's a matter of taste. And currently, we can have both. We won't anymore if we want to treat \[...\] as an element. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou