Helge Hafting wrote:
> The problem is, you either support things through the
> preamble or some dialog, but not both.
let me guess, the law of hafting?
> If you use the listing support, where in the preamble would
> you put an additional option?
in the case of the listings package i had the impression they could be passed
using \lstset{}
> But the listings dialog can provide a textfield where experts may
> enter the rare extra options.
> And it is even possible to have some
> syntax checking that avoids common problems like mis-spelled
> keywords or mismatched braces.
sure, and for these rare extra options a simple lineedit with (possibly) a
validator should be enough.
now there is a big textedit with an ugly "documentation" field next to it and
that i don't like so much: imagine if we start doing that for all packages and
options that are unsupported through the ui atm!
> That would certainly cut down on the GUI work, but won't solve the
> problem of bad design if 163 parameters are crammed into
> a dialog (or set of dialogs).
but it would make it more easy to support new packages (and the 163 parameters
case is a pathological example) and it should also be possible to generate a ui
for unimplemented parameters and put it in an advanced options tab...
regards, ed.
