Gregor Gorjanc wrote:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...
>> > Gregor> Thinking a bit further, this could be solved by another option
>> > Gregor> for tex2lyx to specify which literate programing file format
>> > Gregor> would be chosen. I suggest noweb for default name instead of
>> > Gregor> literate as literate is far more general than noweb. For
>> > Gregor> Sweave file format name sweave could be chosen.
>>
>> Why a different format? What is different in sweave that requires tex2lyx
>> to act differently? I suspect that you simply found a bug in the noweb
>> import that would also accor with noweb files, because the tex2lyx noweb
>> support was really a quick hack.
>
> I did not found any bug in tex2lyx noweb!
>
> There is no difference in syntax between noweb and Sweave. There is only
> difference in what layout should provide - for example Sweave does not
> need \usepackage{noweb} - it needs \usepackage{Sweave}, but this is
> inserted by Sweave intself.
Then I don't understand your problem with importing. It should be as easy as
defining a sweave->lyx converter that calls tex2lyx in noweb mode. Why do
you want a new option in tex2lyx as you wrote above?
> And there is a need to be able to align scrap
> environment - current literate layouts do not allow this. I have all the
> needed modifications, but that is a hack. Partly because noweb support is
> a hack.
That has nothing to do with tex2lyx. Please don't mix different problems.
>> > Is there any reason to have a sweave-article and a noweb-article
>> > class? What would the difference be between the two? It seems to me
>> > that it would be better to pick a tool in Document>Settings to choose
>> > a literate programming program.
>>
>> But that is already possible if you simply redefine the noweb converter.
>> As Gregor pointed out this is not nice if you use both. The alternative
>> to a new document class would be yet another set of dvi, ps and pdf
>> formats for output via sweave, with an appropriate set of converters.
>> That becomes unmanageable if it is extended even more. I already do not
>> like the different pdf formats, but I have no better idea.
>> I always wanted to reply to his original message but did not find the
>> time.
>
> Only literate format can be used as it has specific meaning.
I don't understand. Only literate format can be sued for what?
>> IMO, there are four problems:
>>
>> 1) output to sweave format. This is currently only possible with hacks,
>> either via redefining the literate format, or by defining a
>> literate->seave converter (would be a dummy converter that just copies
>> the file), and new
>
> Hmm. This is interesting. How can I define dummy converter that just
> copies literate to sweave layout?
That depends on your OS. In linux it would be
cp $$i $$o
>> dvi,ps and pdf formats with an appropriate converter from sweave. The
>> long
>
> This is again a problem, as I have to use literate in output definition in
> layout files. Then I would need sweave --> literate converter, but then I
> again have problem with noweb specific things.
I don't get it. Why would you need a sweave->literate converter? If we don't
have a sweave backend, export would go like this:
lyx->literate->sweave->{dvisweave,pssweave,pdfsweave}
where the step sweave->{dvisweave,pssweave,pdfsweave} would probably be
composed of several steps.
Georg
