Georg Baum wrote:
>> Alfredo> From a quick research with svn I've found two seemingly
>> Alfredo> relevant (not sure really) entries. Seems we don't output
>> Alfredo> them because it's a problem reading them back?
>
> To which braces do you refer? The one of the sub/superscript are AFAIK
> always output. It would probably be possible to leave them out, but why?
> The ones around a multiple character nucleus need to be added manually (by
> a brace inset). Reading braces back is in no case a problem.
Yes, the second ones. Optimally we should output braces around a multiple
char nucleus. IUC the problem is that on reading them back we would have
added a brace inset that was not there originally.
>> This is very fragile stuff.
>
> That depends. It is fragile if you try to be clever during parsing and
> remove insets that have been created previously, and add them back in
> write() again. As long as you do normal parsing without removing insets it
> is quite robust.
> Currently everything is working perfectly. There is only one drawback
> concerning the representation on screen: For things like {ab}^{c} the
> braces around {ab} are shown in red, and if you want to enter such things
> you need to enter a brace inset around ab. This is what Jean-Marc wanted
I disagree, this is not just representation on screen, it's cumbersome to
enter them. And there is an inconsistency: we pretend to have a multi-char
nucleus internally but we output something else to latex. It's a pity that
there's no good solution. Maybe it would be better to not have muti-char
nucleus at all and force the user to enter a brace inset?
A/
