The following piece of reStructuredText does not give the result I expect.
*:sup:`superscript`*
Expected result: superscript
Actual result: :sup:`superscript`
The reason why it is happening is clear (reST text roles cannot be nested), however how can I obtain the expected result?
As specified in a FAQ, this is not currently possible without using the raw directive or without using a custom, ad-hoc directive.
You can use substitution:
The chemical formula for pure water is |H2O|.
.. |H2O| replace:: H\ :sub:`2`\ O
See the reStructuredText spec for further information on character-level markup and the substitution mechanism.
Related
I need to concatenate two strings within an R object: one is just regular text; the other is italicized. So, I tried a lot of combinations, e.g.
paste0(" This is Regular", italic( This is Italics))
The desired result should be:
This is Regular This is Italics
Any ideia on how to do it?
Thanks!
In plot labels, you can use expressions, see mathematical annotation :
plot(1,xlab=expression("This is regular"~italic("this is italic")))
To provide an string for which an HTML parser will recognise the need to render the text in Italics, wrap the text in <i> and </i>. For example: "This is plain text, but <i>this is in Italics</i>.".
However, most HTML processors will assume that you want your text to appear as-is and will escape their input by default. This means that the special meanings of certain characters - including < and > will be "turned off". You need to tell the processor not to do this. How you do that will depend on context. I can't tell you that because you haven't given me context.
Are you for example, writing to a raw HTML file? (You need do nothing.) Are you writing to a Markdown file? If so, how? In plain text or in a rendered chunk? Are you writing a caption to a graphic? (Waldi has suggested a solution.) Etc, etc....
In the README.rst for blargs we see an syntactic error in the first sentence of the Quick Start section - specifically we see :class: rendered instead of only seeing Parser.
The actual code of that sentence is:
The preferred use of :class:`Parser` is via the ``with`` idiom, as follows:
How do we fix that syntax so that it correctly renders and what part of the restructured text docs informs us about this?
When editing an Sweave document in LaTeX (using the Noweb mode), Emacs knows to "ignore" code that is in <<>>= blocks. However, for interstitial \Sexpr{} blocks, this isn't the case. Given that R references by columns via '$' and LaTeX uses $ to set-off equations, these \Sexpr{} blocks often break the syntax highlighting, like so:
I have a very rudimentary understanding the elisp & Emacs syntax highlighting, but my hope is that it might be possible to add something to .emacs that will disable any parsing/$ detection within \Sexpr{}'s.
I thought emacs with ESS has correct syntax highlighting for Sweave?
Anyway, the easiest "fix" is to just not use the $ operator but [[ instead. For example:
foo$p.value
foo[['p.value']]
Should give the same result. I think foo$p.value is just short for foo[["p.value",exact=FALSE]]
I don't have a fix either, but I'll pass along my workaround, which is to never (well, rarely) do any processing in \Sexpr chunks but instead to store things I want to use in \Sexpr in variables, and to do so in the same chunk I do the main calculations in.
<<echo=FALSE, results=hide>>=
t1 <- chisq.test(someVar)
p1 <- formatC(t1$p.value, format="%f", digits=2)
#
\dots with a $p$-value of \Sexpr{p1}.
While there are some downsides to this, I find it helps me to better keep track of what I want to present, and how I want to present it.
As an aside, consider using formatC instead of round as it can keep significant zeros (ie, 0.10 instead of 0.1).
I have no good answer for you as I am not an Emacs hacker, so I usually do one of two things:
Either add a simple % $ comment at the of the line to "close" the math expression from $ to $,
Or rewrite the expression to not use $-based subsetting:
round(as.numeric(chisq.test(someVar)["p.value"]), 2).
When editing an Sweave document in LaTeX (using the Noweb mode), Emacs knows to "ignore" code that is in <<>>= blocks. However, for interstitial \Sexpr{} blocks, this isn't the case. Given that R references by columns via '$' and LaTeX uses $ to set-off equations, these \Sexpr{} blocks often break the syntax highlighting, like so:
I have a very rudimentary understanding the elisp & Emacs syntax highlighting, but my hope is that it might be possible to add something to .emacs that will disable any parsing/$ detection within \Sexpr{}'s.
I thought emacs with ESS has correct syntax highlighting for Sweave?
Anyway, the easiest "fix" is to just not use the $ operator but [[ instead. For example:
foo$p.value
foo[['p.value']]
Should give the same result. I think foo$p.value is just short for foo[["p.value",exact=FALSE]]
I don't have a fix either, but I'll pass along my workaround, which is to never (well, rarely) do any processing in \Sexpr chunks but instead to store things I want to use in \Sexpr in variables, and to do so in the same chunk I do the main calculations in.
<<echo=FALSE, results=hide>>=
t1 <- chisq.test(someVar)
p1 <- formatC(t1$p.value, format="%f", digits=2)
#
\dots with a $p$-value of \Sexpr{p1}.
While there are some downsides to this, I find it helps me to better keep track of what I want to present, and how I want to present it.
As an aside, consider using formatC instead of round as it can keep significant zeros (ie, 0.10 instead of 0.1).
I have no good answer for you as I am not an Emacs hacker, so I usually do one of two things:
Either add a simple % $ comment at the of the line to "close" the math expression from $ to $,
Or rewrite the expression to not use $-based subsetting:
round(as.numeric(chisq.test(someVar)["p.value"]), 2).
For example, in http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/papers/algorithmicstatistics.pdf at the bottom of page 5 and top of page 6, he uses a plus/equal symbol and a similar plus/lessthan symbol. I can't figure out how to make that symbol, and I'd like to quote him.
Any help?
Try $\stackrel{top}{bottom}$
You'd want something like this:
$X \stackrel{+}{=} Y$
This positions the plus sign above the equals sign. For example, the following code:
$K(x,y|z) \stackrel{+}{=} K(x|z) \stackrel{+}{<} I(x:y|z)$
produces the following output:
The Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List (from here) is a great resource, and start for questions like this. You could also contact the author, it's possible he did some LaTex voodoo (math accents and such) to get it to work.
Best of luck.
PS: isn't \pm plus-minus, not plus-equals?
Here's the list of Latex Math Symbols. I don't see the two from the PDF you linked to. Do you know what they mean? You might be able to find an equivalent in the Latex list.