Timothy <tecos...@gmail.com> writes:
> Actually, since writing this patch I'm not sure that $$-surrounding
> \begin{}...\end{} environments is also a good idea. I'm inclined to
> leave this out of the patch.
Sounds good.
> I do rather like the `rx' macro, however I'm not sure that
> (rx bol "\\(") is really an improvement over "^\\\\(" in this particular
> case.
True, but I still prefer `rx'. I guess I wrote too many backslashes.
Anyway it's a nitpick. Do whatever you want.
>> Otherwise, it is a macro. We can assume it lives outside math mode. So
>> maybe the "Unrecognized fragment: %S" is in order in that situation. We
>> could also let HTML export back-end deal with it. I don't know what is
>> better.
>
> I'm not sure what to do here either. Perhaps nothing/HTML backend?
I suggest to re-send to HTML backend `org-export-data-with-backend', to
be consistent with the rest of un-handled objects.
> Finally, I think if this case (lone macro) is handled, there aren't any
> possible "Unrecognized fragment"s that could be passed, and so that
> condition would no longer be necessary?
Yup. If you handle $$ $ \( \[ and macros, you're set.
Regards,
