Hello, Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes:
> An external library is ideal (had it existed), but where to stop? Are > entities wrapped in math "supported syntax"? > E.g. "$\alpha\beta\gamma\delta$". No. What is inside a math snippet/environment is a black box for Org. Entities are a different beast that do not require a math environment (e.g., "\alpha" is not considered to be LaTeX code). > So your strategy would be to disable fontification within math (since > the syntax is not org), and delegate it to a separate library, say > tex-fold.el (which also doesn't work out-of-the-box in Org-buffers)? > In theory it's ideal, but consistency (e.g. supported entities) and > comparability is probably issues. I don't think so. No fontification at all on LaTeX code is a decent default in an Org buffer. Additional, exact, fontification for it is a nice bonus. >> This doesn't solve the leak of Org's fontification on math snippets and >> environments. > > But it would if you can delegate parsing of math to a separate > library, no? No it wouldn't, because Org would still have to fontify sub/superscript outside math snippets. Of course, dedicated fontification could override leaked one, but I think this would be troublesome in some occasions. At some point, I hope to introduce the parser in the fontification process, which would some the problem. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
