Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: > Maybe, but it is also much more complex in terms of parser. > Backtracking will introduce non-linear complexity to the parser, > degrading the performance significantly.
Is that so? I thought it is all about simple precedence rules. In this case, once the parser finds the opening \(, it interprets everything as LaTeX, until it finds the closing \). > It will also make Org syntax much, much harder in more complex cases - > there will still be ambiguities when you have more than 2 > interpretations: e.g. > > | \(|x|\) | \(|x|\) | > > this one has 3 possibilities: > > 1. <cell> \(</cell><cell>x... > 2. <cell> <latex>|x|\) | \(|x|</latex> </cell> > 3. <cell> <latex>|x|</latex> </cell><cell> <latex>|x|</latex> </cell> Again, if \(...\) has a higher precedence than the table |, then this is not a problem. There is no ambiguity, right? > We cannot change it at this point without breaking all the historical > documents + third-party parsers. That's why I am talking about > providing markup extension to address the issue rather than altering > the existing parser fundamentals. It would only break the documents that have one-sided \( or \) in the cells of the same column, no? And that is ... virtually never? Rudy -- "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." --- Mark Twain, paraphrased Rudolf Adamkovič <rud...@adamkovic.org> [he/him] http://adamkovic.org
