> You mean like when microsoft thought it would be nice to let people > send exe files by e-mail and execute them by double clicking? The kind > of feature that should not be a problem for anyone...
The key point is that 'you do not have to', because the current implementation handles that better than the M$ case. > Let's take an example: when you send me an e-mail, I understand that > it may contain attachments. Why don't we allow the attachments to > unpack themselves to some absolute path on the harddisk, then? Because > I would be very annoyed if it did. First, unpack does not automatically happen in *my* implementation. You should shot Richard and Jose about this. Second, my updated implementation only unpack to the document directory, not any path on the harddisk. > Having a LyX file that does not typeset is a not a problem of the same > magnitude as having a LyX file that creates files at arbitrary places > on your hard disk. But if lyx forbids, or make it very difficult, to make a file that can be compiled anywhere, it is lyx' problem. > Do you know that you did not discover this problem actually? That TeX > has had a TEXINPUTS variable for 10-15 years just for that? <removed> > I do not understand why you want to 'solve' this way a problem that > does not really exist. Then why donot you use this technique to our user's guide? I know your answer, and that is my problem as well. Bo
