>>>>> "Edmar" == Edmar Wienskoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Patch 5 is perhaps ok, but I am not sure what problem it tries to
>> solve.
Edmar> Noweb, like other literate packages, expects to read a
Edmar> latexfile with some noweb commands intermixed. The noweb
Edmar> commands are then translated to latex, and will leave the
Edmar> remaining of the file untouched. An example will make my point
Edmar> clear:
Edmar> The patch 5 associates latex command "dummy" to "do not
Edmar> generate \begin{} \end{} nor \tem". With that patch applied,
Edmar> and defining the Scrap layout to be: Style Scrap LatexType
Edmar> Item_Environment LatexName dummy ....
The right thing to do is not that, but rather add a way in texclass
files to determine whether Return should end a layout or not (if I
understand correctly, this is the behaviour that you want to
emulate). Something like 'KeepStyleOnReturn 1'.
Edmar> Then, the output of lyx will be exactly what we need it to be.
Yes, but you are twisting the semantics of the definition instead of
fixing it...
Edmar> On the other hand, a separate class may require the user to
Edmar> define wether the document is a web document or plain latex
Edmar> document very early. Like for example: pressing a button in
Edmar> the Layout/Document menu. In that case, a Web document would
Edmar> allways be a Web document even if it has no scrap on it. (
Edmar> Which is OK with noweb, BTW). And a LaTeX document would have
Edmar> the "Scrap" layout grayed out, i.e., disabled. Thus, it could
Edmar> never be upgraded to a Web document.
What you could do is have a new OutputType (new in lyx 1.0.0pre5 cvs)
noweb (existing types are LaTeX, LinuxDoc, DocBook) and a specific
article class for noweb. It is certainly the best solution for me,
since I don't want to add a bogus Scrap entry that will look just
annoying to 95% of the users.
In any case, supporting noweb in LyX is certainly a great idea.
JMarc
