Re: [O] Escaping again!

[Rustom Mody]

Hi Bastien

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Rustom,

Rustom Mody <address@hidden> writes:

> - \(+\):: Int → Int → Int
> - \(-\):: Int → Int →Int
> - \(\leq\):: Int → Int → Bool
> - \(=\):: Int → Int → Bool

1. \(+\) :: Int → Int → Int
2. \(-\) :: Int → Int →Int
3. \(\leq\) :: Int → Int → Bool
4. \(=\) :: Int → Int → Bool

would do -- but this is not entirely satisfactory.

For now description lists accept both "-" and "+".  I'm all for
allowing only "-" so that we could use

+ \(+\) :: Int → Int → Int
+ \(-\) :: Int → Int →Int
+ \(\leq\) :: Int → Int → Bool
+ \(=\) :: Int → Int → Bool

in your example.

What do you and others think?

If you are asking me about a proposed change, I thank you for the consideration :-)

Please dont take the following too seriously -- I am just spoilt by the fact that I am an old programmer.

Here is a command I ran on the org sources and its output:

$ grep -r '\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' .
./contrib/lisp/ox-groff.el:          "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" ".br\n" output)))


./lisp/ox-latex.el:            "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " \\\\\\\\\n" output)))
./lisp/ox-latex.el:              "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " \\\\\\\\\n" contents)))
./lisp/ox-odt.el:            "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" "<text:line-break/>" output t)))
./lisp/ox-man.el:      (setq output (replace-regexp-in-string "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" ".br\n"
./lisp/ox-html.el:         "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n"
./lisp/ox-html.el:           "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n"
./lisp/ox-texinfo.el:            "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " @*\n" output)))
./lisp/ox-texinfo.el:             "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " \\\\\\\\\n" contents)))
./lisp/org.el:    (looking-at "\\\\\\\\\\($\\|[^\\\\]\\)")))

So sometimes we need that much ESCAPE-ing.

I realise that the general support for escaping in org is much harder than in a programming language like lisp because there are so many different contexts and different entities to escape.

However I would also like to humbly submit that if one doesn't have systematic general escaping, there will always be legitimate uses that will not be addressable.

Anyways… if you are doing this just for me (!) very kind of you!
For now I am getting along using '꞉' (Unicode 0xA789).

Regards,

Rusi

--
http://blog.languager.org