It feels absurd to have this occur in the parser, as if you can somehow account for all the cases via guessing what people I mean. You absolutely must have a grouping operation like {} at least available as a fallback.

I feel like this is a lesson people keep learning over and over across programming languages: don't let your syntax try to infer the intended meaning of what was typed, just do something simple and predictable.

So (b) seems like the only sane choice, but having the grouping operation being e^(abs(x)) is also crazy. You need something like TeX's e^{abs(x)}.

Personally I think the "best" workaround for this is to decouple the text representation and the representation the editing happens in. Allow people to type e^abs(x) and then the editor translates that into e^{abs(x)} while letting you edit it as an exponential, but if you're working on the underlying text file then you have to write e^{abs(x)}. For that matters, you can just have the editor represent it as a literal superscript.

(My hunch is that this is generally much-needed across languages: let the editor do some of the parsing work. I think there's much to be gained by separating the two, because you can keep the parser of the actual language simple while still getting all your editing-efficiency improvements out of the editor).

I had my gripes with LaTeX but the backslash in front of every macro was never one of them. I think it helps not only machine parsing but very much my human visual parsing.

BTW one related trap in LaTeX is if a macro without parameters removes the trailing space from the output. The article mentions this in passing but does not say what Typst's solution is. Do Typst functions always require parentheses?

I'm also confused about the following syntax and especially where the function ends:

    table.header([A], [B]) // This one is clear

    table.header()[A] // Makes sense, [A] turns magically into last param

    table.header()[A][B] // Slightly confusing, why would [B] also belong to the function? But OK.

    table.header()[A] [B] // Totally confusing, why is this an error now?

When I found out that option B was already merged [1] I got very excited because the current behavior is still very unintuitive to me and one of the few areas where I prefer the behavior from Latex. Unfortunately, the changes were reverted shortly after because they discovered deeper issues with the new old design [2]. As far as I can see, there hasn't been any further progress on this, sadly.

[1] https://github.com/typst/typst/pull/6442

[2] https://github.com/typst/typst/pull/7084

In LaTeX that would be close to option 2:

    e^{|x|}
    f_{i(x)}

I haven't used Typst much, so I am a bit wary of typesetting engines that are "too smart": It can be problematic when introducing new notations, which is quite common.

In mathup[1] I handle this by allowing authors to strategically place space around groups they want to operate on:

    e^ x-1  <- "e with x minus one as superscript"
    e^x - 1  <- "e with x as superscript minus one. Same as e^x-1"
    f_ i(x)  <- "f with i of x as subscript"
    f_i (x) <- "f with i as subscript of x. Same as f_i(x)"

    f_i .$ (x)
    a / b.*(1 - x)
    sum_ X_ i.,j

For those not familiar with the Typst library, it feels important to mention there is an `attach` function which gives much more explicit control of sub/superscript type-stetting. I'm surprised the blog didn't mention this at all as an option.

Docs: https://typst.app/docs/reference/math/attach/

Having run into this bug/syntax ambiguity in my writing a lot, I don’t find it’s much of a bother. The typst engine runs fast enough that most of the time I can run a synced preview window, which makes this particular foible easy to catch.

I really don't see the problem with the current notation. I find that is very simple and intuitive: function calls bind tightly, use a space to change that.

f_i(x) vs f_i (x)

1/x(a+b) vs 1/x (a+b)

ab vs a b

So simple. Being too "smart" invariably leads to more headaches and confusion than just having a simple, consistent rule.

I've encountered this several times and even though I found it frustrating it didn't occur to me it could be something that could/should be fixed. You're always going to have some quirks if you want a syntax without too much parentheses right?

They missed another option: require brackets where it would otherwise be ambiguous.

I love well-reasoned, thorough articles like this with all the tradeoffs considered. It makes me confident in Typst’s future.

I'm not a big math mode user (but I use typst a lot).

Latex equation compatibility seems like a blocker for many. Maybe they should have a library that allows one to drop in latex formulas?

IMO a math mode that was less syntactic but more semantic would solve all these issues

   exp(e, abs(x))

>pi(1 + 2) is a function call or just pi multiplied by three.

another case for using proper notation π with some autosubstitution rules so that you can resolve the ambiguity immediately while typing (if pi is converted into π you backspace and let it stay pi as a function)

But #functions also seems like a good option for readability

My intuition is the opposite of the author’s. I think they are conditioned by latex to think differently about what is “natural.”

The post should lead with the proposed conclusion (revert and require explicit grouping) so that the reader can think about the arguments knowing the conclusion.

I like typst but in all honesty I was a bit disappointed when I saw that they didn't have a backwards compatible math mode. Looking at all the shortcomings of latex, I wouldn't say the math notation is part of it.

And since probably many people are very familiar with it, I would have liked for them to just keep that part.

are there any tools to convert large latex documents to typst ? it looks a huge improvement, but the migration path is the only thing that's stopping me.