Change Details

wrong newcommand preparsing: the directive ``` \newcommand{\ol}{\overline} ``` transforms ``` $\ol{D(z_0,r)}$ ``` into ``` <math>\overline</math> ``` but the correct output should be ``` <math>\overline{D(z_0,r)}</math> ``` In LaTeX it properly works.

wrong newcommand preparsing: the directive ``` \newcommand{\ol}{\overline} ``` transforms ``` $\ol{D(z_0,r)}$ ``` into ``` <math>\overline</math> ``` but the correct output should be ``` <math>\overline{D(z_0,r)}</math> ``` In LaTeX it properly works. Edit: changing the aforementioned latex directive into ``` \newcommand{\ol}[1]{\overline{#1}} ``` texla properly wokrs and returns ``` <math>\overline{ D(z_0,r) }</math> ``` If we have to manually change the `\def` directive into `\newcommand` we can see how the command is used and adapt the `\newcommand` definition, but we may encounter someone who uses the `\newcommand` directive in the concise way, and that would break mediawiki. We have to adapt how newcommand is preparsed, and it will be a bit tough

wrong newcommand preparsing: the directive ``` \newcommand{\ol}{\overline} ``` transforms ``` $\ol{D(z_0,r)}$ ``` into ``` <math>\overline</math> ``` but the correct output should be ``` <math>\overline{D(z_0,r)}</math> ``` In LaTeX it properly works. Edit: changing the aforementioned latex directive into ``` \newcommand{\ol}[1]{\overline{#1}} ``` texla properly wokrs and returns ``` <math>\overline{ D(z_0,r) }</math> ``` If we have to manually change the `\def` directive into `\newcommand` we can see how the command is used and adapt the `\newcommand` definition, but we may encounter someone who uses the `\newcommand` directive in the concise way, and that would break mediawiki. We have to adapt how newcommand is preparsed, and it will be a bit tough