Vincent van Ravesteijn <v.f.vanraveste...@tudelft.nl> writes: > Uwe Stöhr schreef: >>> > You misunderstood my concept. I only remove things that are >>> > definitively re-added by LyX, see above. Do you have an example >>> > where this is not the case?
Actually, you remove things that are re-added by LyX, but without checking whether the definition is the same, so there is a possibility that the definition was different. The problem is the same with the comments-based version, although the comments can be used to make it clear to the latex guys that some parts will be ignored anyway. I think the situation is that both methods (Uwe's new one and the old one I implemented) have different shortcomings. Both read identically files that do not come from LyX at all (I think). When importing a file which is a modified version of something LyX exported but was modified, * Uwe's version works better when the preamble of the file has been completely reformatted but creates inflation of the preamble at each importation cycle. It is also unable to handle correctly preamble lines coming from layout/modules, unless we hardcode all of them in tex2lyx. * the old comments-based version works well (although there were some fixable bugs) when importing a file which preamble has not been significantly modified (and direct lyx>tex>lyx roundtrip). Of course, both of us think that his method works on the most important use case :) Uwe, can we agree on this statement of the problem? If we do, from there we/someone has to decide which way we want to go. JMarc
