On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:47 PM Nicolas Goaziou <
address@hidden> wrote:
Hello,
Ethan Ligon <address@hidden> writes:
> I've long used the following construction for displayed equations in org
> #
> \[
> u_i(c)=p_i\lambda
> \]
> #
> which (i) gives nice space for reading equations in the org-source, and
> (ii) nicely protects the display equation from (fill-paragraph) and
> friends.
>
> However, exporting with this construction *stopped* working after commit
> 53a4209; what happens now is that ox.el replaces the # with a blank line,
> breaking my single paragraph into three.
I see only one paragraph above. Could you elaborate a bit?
Sure. If I export the above using ox-ascii, I obtain, in part:
#+begin_example
I've long used the following construction for displayed equations in org
\[ u_i(c)=p_i\lambda \]
which (i) gives nice space for reading equations in the org-source, and
(ii) nicely protects the display equation from (fill-paragraph) and
friends.
#+end_example
While if I export via ox-latex I obtain in the *.tex source:
#+begin_example
I've long used the following construction for displayed equations in org
\[
u_i(c)=p_i\lambda
\]
which (i) gives nice space for reading equations in the org-source, and
(ii) nicely protects the display equation from (fill-paragraph) and
friends.
#+end_example
It's really this last case that's a serious problem, since when compiled with LaTeX we get three paragraphs (too much vertical space between the first line and the displayed equation, and excruciatingly an improper indentation of the bit following the displayed equation (i.e., "which (i)..." is indented).
> A related problem: one can no longer have commented lines in (at least
> some) property drawers.
This is not possible indeed, per property drawers syntax. Also, I'd
rather not introduce comments in property drawers (I don't think this
was ever officially supported anyway).
> It seems to me that the correct solution would have org-export--delete-
> comments actually delete a single line comment, not replace it with \n, as
> was the case prior to the indicated commit.
>
> I gather that the change was introduced to deal with a bug observed by
> Samuel Wales (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/102860; see also
> below). His problem example involved incorrectly truncated footnotes
> (these are deemed to end after two blank lines). But it seems to me that
> the correct solution to his example is to delete *both* the commented
> line and the following blank line.
Been there, done that. Your solution is not correct in all cases. E.g.,
with the following document
Paragra1
# comment
Paragraph2
removing both the comment and the blank line above gives you a single
paragraph, which doesn't match expectations.
Point taken, and I appreciate that you must have thought about this quite a lot. But I still wish for the old behavior, which would have simply deleted the # comment line.
This would break SW's footnote example, but perhaps that (contrived? maybe I don't understand his use case) problem could be addressed by changing the documentation. Right now the docs say that a footnote
"ends at the next footnote definition, headline, or after two consecutive empty lines."
Why not just change to
"ends at the next footnote definition, headline, or two empty lines (consecutive, or with a comment)."
Thanks for your work on this!
-Ethan