Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> If you want to insert raw LaTeX in an Org buffer, then \ce{^{238}U} is
> invalid because you cannot nest braces. You can write instead:
>
> @@latex:\ce{^{238}U}@@
>
> or you can define a macro, e.g.,:
>
> #+MACRO: ce @@latex:\ce{$1}@@
>
> and then use
>
> {{{ce(^{238}U)}}}
>
> Also, ^2H is not recognized as superscript _on purpose_. Per Org syntax,
> you have to add a non-blank character before the caret. Otherwise, there
> would be ambiguity between underline (e.g., _under_) and subscript
> (_under). And superscript syntax follows subscript's.
>
> In this case, you can probably use a math snippet, e.g.,
>
> \(^2\)H
Thank you for the explanation. I got to know what went wrong.
I am wondering where the claims "you cannot nest braces" and "Per Org
syntax, you have to add a non-blank character before the caret" come
from. Is there a general principle guideline for the org syntax, or is
it a taste of the maintainer only?
Is it true when an exporter maintainer changes, the syntax changes to
his somehow incompatible preference? In [1], Carsten regarded "you have
to add a non-blank character before the caret" as a bug and fixed it;
while you regard it as a rule. I am curious about what was the
compelling motivation to make this shift.
Interpreting \ce{^{238}U} directly complicates the exporter parser
logic, while gives LaTeX composers a syntax sugar. The inconvenience of
"\(^2\)H" is similar to "\_leading_under_line". Either syntax is not
superior to the other. Maintaining a stable syntax is the principle in
this case.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate and respect your new-school exporting
framework, and the sexy features it makes possible. I am to express my
value and concern on the longterm specification (and consequently
usability) of the org syntax.
Cheers,
Benda
1. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2009-09/msg00887.html
