Federico Beffa <be...@ieee.org> writes: > The example highlight the difference that I suggested to remove in the > very first place (by making \[...\] an environment). This was rejected > to preserve backward compatibility and that's fine. So I moved on to a > second proposal: modify the paragraph filling function.
This example illustrates that it would be nice to fill two different structures, well, differently. > From your sentence in your last reply: > "... even though M-q cannot tell that difference (with your proposal, > the behaviour would be the same in both cases)." > I understand that there is no technical deficiency in it. I cannot speak about technical deficiency. I didn't look closely at the code. There are some gotchas, though, e.g., when auto-filling (moving from "inline" to "block"). > Am I therefore correct in saying that if you prefer not to include > this proposal in org-mode it isn't for technical reasons but it is > a matter of opinion/taste? I'm just pointing out an ergonomy (or consistency) annoyance in your proposal. I'm not thrilled by faking the filling mechanism. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
