rgheck <rgh...@bobjweil.com> writes: > Yes, I have been following it, distantly, and am in effect endorsing > the old solution, plus some additional granularity. Your worries about > the new attempt seem to me reasonable ones.
I'll let Uwe decide on what he wants to do. Nevertheless, concerning what you propose, I think it is not really the way it should be redone: what it did was output human-readable comments and have tex2lyx parse them. I would propose to reverse the logic and have LyX output coments that follow a tex2lyx specific syntax, like for example: % [t2l:class=foo] use textclass foo This is useful when it is not the same as in \documentclass, or for tex fragments. % [t2l:modules=foo, bar] list of modules used by this file % [t2l:keepall] in the following lines, all macros are kept in preamble % [t2l:keepunknown] in the following lines, only macros that has not been recognized by tex2lyx are kept % [t2l:keepnone] none of the preamble lines below are kept We could have extra directives that tell what insets are used, for example. And a document setting allowing not to output these tags. The advantage of this approach is that we can document what we do, and that these tags are accessible also to people who want to generate latex code and import it in LyX. JMarc
