auctex-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: [AUCTeX-devel] latex-pretty-symbols.el and subscripts (x-symbol): do

 From: Uwe Brauer Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] latex-pretty-symbols.el and subscripts (x-symbol): don't display _ or ^ Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 07:24:33 +0000 User-agent: Gnus/5.13001 (Ma Gnus v0.10) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)

> 2015-08-23 22:50 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer <address@hidden>:

> Speaking for myself, I don't like code disappearing.  Instead I like
> AUCTeX' approach: {sub,super}scripts are rendered as such but "^" and
> "_" (and braces) are still there.

Usually I agree, but in this specific case, I prefer to not see "^" and "_".

> I thought that adding another
> substitute-patterns-with-unicode-symbol' would have overridden the
> one in latex-unicode-simplified', but it doesn't seem to be the case.
> Then, redefining `latex-unicode-simplified' seems to be the way to go.

> Why?  I'm not a hardcore TeX-fold-mode user, actually I seldom use it,
> I don't know why you say you have to do that.

Here is the scenario:
$$\label{eq:new:1} \int f(x)dx =0$$

Now TeX-fold-buffer gives:
$$[l] ∫ f(x)dx =0$$

So the integral is represented by its unicode symbol.
Now I modify the equation

$$[l] ∫ f(x)dx = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}$$

Sum is NOT represented this way, however when I run
TeX-fold-clearout-buffer, and then again TeX-fold buffer I obtain:

$$[l] ∫ f(x)dx = ∑_{j=1}^{∞}$$

Can you reproduce this behavior? Don't you think that it is
inconvenient?

Uwe