On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:19:16PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2015-09-17, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:30:36AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > But, if \AA is entered in a math mode environment, no replacement takes
> > place.
>
> * without patch,
> - it would be replaced by a blue *italic Å* symbol,
> · similar to math-commands (\i \int, \ne, \le, ...)
> · unlike other text-only commands (\aa, \OE, \oe, ...), but
> - it would either fail to compile or (e.g. with LatinModern fonts) be
> rendered as *upright Å*.
>
> > It would stay in red with Günter's patch and would cause latex
> > errors
>
> or (e.g. with LatinModern fonts) be rendered as *upright* Å
> · similar to other text-only commands (like \aa, \OE, \oe, ...)
> (i.e. no change to the LaTeX export but consistent handling in the GUI).
>
> > Instead, with the patch I propose the macro is diplayed as Å
> · similar to math-commands (\i \int, \ne, \le, ...)
> · unlike other text-only commands (\aa, \OE, \oe, ...)
> > and enclosed in a text mode environment, thus avoiding compile errors.
>
> - at the cost of non-consistent handling of text macros,
>
> - with the symbol in the GUI identic to what you get by inserting a literal
> Unicode character but different LaTeX output
> (\textit{\AA} vs. \mathring{A}).
I don't think that we will arrive at a conclusion by continuing this
discussion. It is clear that your view is irreconcilable with mine.
To proceed any farther, this issue has to be decided by voting.
Either departing along your view or following the way mathed has been
developed so far. Note that you cannot solve all the problems your patch
introduces by simply editing lib/symbols and lib/unicodesymbols.
--
Enrico
