On Wed, Mar 13 2024 12:58, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > Tony Zorman <tony.zor...@tu-dresden.de> writes: > >> I recently stumbled upon the fact that Org has some around advice for >> texmathp: org--math-p. For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, >> this has some special handling for cdlatex-math-symbol, and recognises >> display and inline maths environments on its own, only calling out to >> texmathp if it could not find anything. In the former cases, it also >> populates the texmathp-why variable, although the position is just >> filled in with 0. >> >> I suppose my succinct question is: why? Is there any advantage in >> handling inline and display maths in this way, only deferring to >> texmathp as a last resort? I'm asking because I wrote a small package to >> switch between environments, and the position information that >> texmathp-why provides is very useful in choosing the closest >> environment. > > Because Org mode syntax is not LaTeX and `texmathp' assumes that we are inside > LaTeX buffer. So, we first check using Org syntax whether the point is > inside latex fragment in Org sense.
But isn't what Org calls LaTeX math pretty equivalent to what would count as the same in a LaTeX buffer? From a quick scan of texmathp.el, I couldn't actually see a hard-dependency on a TeX-derived mode at all. I wouldn't really care about this so much, but the fact that the Org variant just misreports the position is a bit unfortunate, in my opinion. Tony -- Tony Zorman | https://tony-zorman.com/
