Hi Marcin, Marcin Borkowski <mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes: > On 2014-11-27, at 10:26, Andreas Leha wrote: > >> Marcin Borkowski <mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes: >>> >>> Just my 2 cents: I'd go for LaTeX if heavy math typesetting is involved >>> (then amsmath!), maybe for Org otherwise, check whether the template >>> imposes a many-file structure (which it probably doesn't), and keep >>> everything in one file. >>> >> >> I would disagree here. I do not see, that writing equations in LaTeX is >> substantially easier than in org. Or put the other way round: org's >> support for equations is quite good. >> And preview-latex is really speeding me up. > > You're right, mostly. My point was that with displayed equations (in > amsmath, since core LaTeX lacks a lot in this department), AUCTeX has at > least one nice thing: C-u C-c C-e. (Also, plain C-c C-e.) Both very > handy. (As for preview-LaTeX; in AUCTeX, you also have folding, which > looks worse, but is faster - at least I guess so, I hardly ever use it.) > > (C-c C-e inserts an environment, with autocompletion. With prefix > argument it /changes/ the surrounding environment.) >
Are you aware of org-cdlatex-mode [1]? That provides some similar functionality.f > Also, Richard's post made me realize why I prefer to stay with LaTeX: I > know it way better than Elisp (even though I'm making progress), and in > case of troubles, I can more easily deal with them in LaTeX (though > vertical positioning of things on the page - especially trying to > typeset on a grid - still beats me). I agree here. And some of my org documents admittedly look more like latex documents ... Best, Andreas [1] http://orgmode.org/manual/CDLaTeX-mode.html#CDLaTeX-mode
