Add Markdown block lexer/parser for LaTeX blocks #716
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The block lexer/parser was splitting equations like this $$ x = 2 $$ So the inline lexer/parser was never seeing the whole equation, and it wasn't getting properly rendered. This fixes such breaking by adding a block-level lexer/parser to the LaTeX equations written as either $$...$$ or \\[...\\] The inline "block math" parsing code was kept as is, since the above equation could have been part of a paragraph like "$$x = 2$$" to keep the compatibility with Jupyter Notebook rendering engine (and because there's a test enforcing that behavior)
Merged
|
On the technical merits, it was a close call between this and #717, but I marginally preferred that one. It was based on this branch, however, so both pull requests now show as merged. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resurrection of PR #715, because I want to be able to easily compare it with @mpacer's proposal.
See #404 for rationale.
CC @danilobellini