Re: Math symbols

[Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com>]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 at 10:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,  schwab@linux-m68k.org,
>>   emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2022 08:37:14 +0200
>> 
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 at 09:06, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 
>> >> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>> >> Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> >> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 16:56:49 -0400
>> >> 
>> >> > Yes, but it's pretty incomplete.  It also has some translations that
>> >> > interfere with normal typing, such as ^1 → ¹.
>> >> 
>> >> Indeed, e.g. I use a tweaked version:
>> >
>> > Why not add a variant input method to latin-ltx.el, so everyone could
>> > enjoy that?
>> 
>> Everyone can enjoy ELPA packages, right?
>
> Yes.  But then what was your original proposal and questions about?
> You said there:
>
>> I was wondering about the next coolest thing, math symbols.  Would
>> it make sense to make their TeX names baked into Emacs, next to all
>> other information show in `describe-char?
>
> Was this also about adding something to ELPA?  I just assumed that
> "baked into Emacs" means to have something in core.

I meant that I see two mutually exclusive possibilities:

A. Add my package to ELPA.
B. Make the symbols names built into Emacs somehow.

In case B my package becomes irrelevant because there will be better
ways to implement its functionality in Emacs directly.