Re: [O] [BUG] Export of sub- and superscripts to LaTeX inconsistent in tables?

[Nick Dokos]

Yu <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> When I use superscripts/subscripts in tables, they are incorrectly
> exported to LaTeX -- the placement of math-mode marks ($), braces ({,
> }) seems mixed up.
> 
> As an example an excerpt of my current laboratory book.
> 
> ========================
> | Calculation         | Zn layers | E_tot [eV/atom] (new) |
> (interpolated) | \Delta{}E_tot  [meV/atom] |
> |---------------------+-----------+----------------------+----------------+-------------------|
> [...]
> The energy difference \Delta{}E_tot seems [...]
> ========================
> 
> This gets exported as:
> ========================
> \begin{center}
> \begin{tabular}{lllll}
>  Calculation  &  Zn layers  &  E_tot [eV/atom] (new)  &  (interpolated)  &  
> \D\
> elta\{}E_tot  [meV/atom]  \\
> \hline
> \end{tabular}
> \end{center}
> 
> 
> The energy difference $\Delta${}E$_{\mathrm{tot}}$ seems [\ldots{}]
> ========================
> 
> Outside the table it works as expected.
> 
> You can see 3 errors in the export of "\Delta{}E_tot" to latex in the table:
>     1. There are no $ marks. During PDF-Conversion this causes
>         "! Extra }, or forgotten $" messages.
>     2. The braces around the subscript are missing -- only the first
> character thus is
>         recognized as a subscript by (pdf)latex.
>     3. For some reason, the opening brace after Delta is escaped.
> 
> The problem doesn't depend on the specific case of a LaTeX entity
> before the subscript (i.e. \Delta{}). It occurs too throughout the
> document for combinations like "E_gb", though of course the escaped
> brace  ( \{} ) doesn't occur there.
> 
> When explicitly writing "E_{tot}" in the table, this was exported as
> "E_\{tot\}", which is just as unexpected.
> 
> I tested this with a freshly pulled version from the git repository
> and with the org-mode sample above as the contents of a minimal file
> with the same result.
> 

I think you'll be happier with the new exporter: it does this correctly
I think, and if you find other problems, I'm sure Nicolas will be happy
to fix them.

At the risk of putting words into Bastien's mouth, I would say that at
this point, the old latex exporter should probably be considered
unmaintained: nobody is putting much time into it.

To use the new exporter, see a post of mine from a couple of days ago:

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/56993/focus=57007

HTH,
Nick