OK, in response to everyone's reassurances, consider my feathers unruffled.
I'm not averse to using a completely different program in the long run; I
just wanted to make sure people are aware that there are no easy fixes, and
any attempt to write a new reLyX (rereLyX?) will take a lot of work and
hacking (although if the LyX file format changes -- to xml, e.g., -- it
might be easier).
If it were Friday, I would be telling everyone I'm not talking to them
anymore because I'm so offended, but I don't have the energy to be offended
this morning.
I'm also not offended that reLyX's feature in LDN has been delayed yet
again. I'm sure it's not a conspiracy or anything.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 08:01:04AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> Erm... did I mentioned that is wasn't finished and that I didn't want to
> show it to you in the first place? This is a bag full of hacks and I
> know it ;-)
:)
> > I'm still wondering, though. When exactly did we all decide reLyX should
> > retire?
>
> I did not yet. In fact, I see my attempt as a complementary way of
> translating .tex to .lyx. Once tex2lyx is useable I could even imagine
> two import modes until we figured out which one is better in *all* cases.
Having a second method of TeX import (from the command line only) might not
be a bad idea, too.
-Amir
ps Kayvan, good to hear you're getting stuff done.
