GNU bug report logs - #61410
texmathp and literal $

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 61410 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Arash Esbati <arash <at> gnu.org>
To: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
Cc: 61410 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61410: texmathp and literal $
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:27:13 +0100

Hi Keita,

Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> writes:

> Yes. As far as I can see, texmathp.el doesn't pay attention to verbatim
> constructs at all. I think that's an intention of Carsten Dominik.

Thanks for confirming.  I'm not sure about the intention behind it, but
I think we should if we can fix this issue.

> Maybe we can make texmathp syntax-aware (that is, to look into "string
> quotes" syntax.) Currently, I'm not sure whether that's easy or not.

My simple idea was to have an extra check at the end of `texmathp'
itself in terms of: Pass the possible point for math-on to
`LaTeX-verbatim-p' and see what it returs.  I think the possibility for

  $ a \verb|$| $  <= invoke texmathp here

is next to zero while this

  $ a $ \verb|$| <= invoke texmathp here

or this

  \begin{verbatim}
  $
  \begin{end}
  <= invoke texmathp here

are not so far away, from user POV.

> Do you think it's important to have this feature? (I'm neutral to the
> importance.)

I'd say yes: Imagine you want to write a trivial example of bash command
in your document:

  \begin{verbatim}
  $ touch foo
  \begin{end}

currently breaks.

Best, Arash

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.