Comments are limited to 600 characters, which I believe is done so that comments are actually comments, instead of lengthy discussions or answers to the question in the post.
While this is obviously useful, I believe certain characters should not be counted in the 600 limit, because 1) they are not actually displayed (so counting them is irrelevant for the purpose of the char-limit) and 2) because these chars are used to make a more readable comment. Let me make my point clear with some examples.
Some characters, such as
$
,*
,**
,\text
,\frac
,\mathbb
are not actually displayed, but they are useful for emphasis/nice formatting.Some commands, such as ,
\leftrightarrow
,\left(
are displayed, but when rendered the display is way shorter that the char-count.
My point is: sometimes, when I see that I'm getting close to the char-limit, the only way to fit my comment is to delete some commands, which don't actually make my comment longer (when rendered), but they do make it more readable. For example, instead of writing \left(\frac{\mathrm df}{\mathrm dx}\right)
I would end up writing (df/dx)
. When rendered, both are equally long, which mean they are equivalent length-wise. But the first option, despite having a higher char-count, is (IMHO) much more readable and nice-looking than the first one.
In conclusion: the character limitation, while very necessary, can be counter-productive in some cases. I believe it could be useful to include certain exceptions to the character-count of comments: the examples above, as well as the \
in every math command, \!
, \_
, (\
+white space), \mathcal
, ^
, _
, {}
, \overline
, etc.
(Note that this is my first Meta post: any suggestion is highly appreciated)
$$...$$
in comments (they make the overall page difficult to read), and you shouldn't be using any vertical stacking or resized delimiters in inline math in any environment. That is, there really is no reason for\left
,\right
,\frac
, or\limits
in comments. $\endgroup$