Re: Latex superscripts, subscripts and curly braces

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Hans Lonsdale wrote:

>> Are we talking when you edit the source?
>
> Yes. After editing the source I would like to see a hint of
> how things would look like, and also to make it easy for me
> to follow the latex code itself. I also use it in
> conjunction with prettify-symbols.

But that's the whole point, you have one language to express
what should be shown and then a compiler to produce a document
according to what you express in that language. There is no
bridging those to in an Emacs buffer to any extent that will
ever matter, sorry.

But you can have a layer in between, some WYSIWYG editor that
can also produce LaTeX which in turn is compiled, but then you
loose the only edge there really is to LaTeX, namely the
ability to get it exactly the way you want it down to the
tiniest detail - so if you let that go, you are better of with
something else anyway - I don't know - Markdown, Org-mode etc?

>> What do you input then, exactly?
>
> For instance, consider
>
> {\begin{aligned}
> \langle \psi _{{jk}},\psi _{{lm}}\rangle 
> &=  \int _{{-\infty }}^{\infty }\psi _{{jk}}(x)\overline {\psi _{{lm}}(x)}dx\\
> &= \delta _{{jl}}\delta _{{km}}
> \end{aligned}}
>
> I would not like to have the _ and {} showing in the
> expression \psi_{jk}

It's possible but I don't believe it this whole idea or
attitude, it is such an uphill battle it is insane, you need
to let that go or approach it in another way.

> But for industrial applications [...] In industrial
> applications, equations are customarily very terse with lot
> of spaces wasted printing _ ^ { }

I don't think there are industrial applications of LaTeX that
differ in this sense from any one else's applications, sorry.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal