Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> I attach the suggested patch. I removed parenthesis-grouping for the
> reasons I gave above. Carsten: if you'd rather keep this feature, let me
> know, I'll provide another patch.
Applied, but I kept parenthesis-grouping.
Completing myself,
> OTOH, while we're at it, I wonder if we should keep grouping with
> parenthesis. I guess that if you want to use parenthesis, you're going
> to need math mode anyway, so there's no real need to make it easy to
> type, e.g. :
>
> x^(2-i)
>
> which will become x$^\text{(2-i)}$
Hello,
Carsten Dominik writes:
> I have tested this a bit, and it does pretty much what I want.
Great.
> Just to be sure: We will also support expressions with braces, right?
Of course, we will. Curly braces are not ambiguous so I'm no suggesting
to change this part of the syntax (even thoug
Hi Nicolas,
I have tested this a bit, and it does pretty much what I want.
Just to be sure: We will also support expressions with braces, right?
- Carsten
On Nov 25, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For the record `org-match-substring-regexp' is a variation on:
>
> "\\(
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Hello,
>
> For the record `org-match-substring-regexp' is a variation on:
>
> "\\(\\S-\\)\\([_^]\\)\\(\\(?:\\*\\|[-+]?[^-+*!@#$%^_
> \t\r\n,:\"?<>~;./{}=()]+\\)\\)\\)"
>
> I think it is a bit convoluted and therefore difficult to predict.
Luckily this can be made less
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> For the record `org-match-substring-regexp' is a variation on:
>
> "\\(\\S-\\)\\([_^]\\)\\(\\(?:\\*\\|[-+]?[^-+*!@#$%^_
> \t\r\n,:\"?<>~;./{}=()]+\\)\\)\\)"
>
> I think it is a bit convoluted and therefore difficult to predict.
Once more, Nicolas proves to be a master
Hello,
For the record `org-match-substring-regexp' is a variation on:
"\\(\\S-\\)\\([_^]\\)\\(\\(?:\\*\\|[-+]?[^-+*!@#$%^_
\t\r\n,:\"?<>~;./{}=()]+\\)\\)\\)"
I think it is a bit convoluted and therefore difficult to predict. For
example, as recent bug report showed, you may tend to interpret
a_
