Am Samstag, 25. November 2006 04:07 schrieb Bo Peng: > > Sigh. Once again: tex2lyx _must not_ be changed unless somebody implements > > the changes from format 245 to 254 first. Otherwise tex2lyx will generate > > invalid files. > > I was asking if someone can complete this patch with needed tex2lyx > changes so that this patch will *not* produce invalid files. What is > wrong with that?
Ah, I did not understand it like that, because those changes are not small. tex2lyx completely ignores file encodings, so the transition to unicode means that we first have to implement all the inputenc stuff correctly. Therefore this should be done in a separate patch (and IMO there should be one patch for each format update, since they are basically independant). Nothing is wrong with updating tex2lyx to the current format, but as I stated already _I_ am not going to do this, because José wants to rewrite it in python and I don't want to waste my time. If somebody else wants to do that I don't have anything against that. > > > - os << "\n\\newpage\n"; > > > + os << "\n" << latexLabel() << '\n'; > > > Why this? > > latexLabel is a virtual function that return newpage, clearpage or > cleardoublepage. Sorry, I somehow read the '-' sign as a '+' sign, and thought you were writing "\n\\newpage\n\n" << latexLabel() << '\n' to the file. That was what I questioned. The virtual function is fine and indeed cleaner, but as I wrote I don't like the name: This is not a label, but a command name, so it should e.g. be named getCmdName (the name used in InsetCommand for the equivalent method) or similar. If you put this in I'll test the lyx2lyx part and fix it if needed. Georg
