On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:58:04AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 06:55 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:38:11PM +0200, uwesto...@lyx.org wrote:
> >> Author: uwestoehr
> >> Date: Wed Oct 12 17:38:10 2011
> >> New Revision: 39835
> >> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/39835
> >>
> >> Log:
> >> status.20x: reformat an entry
> > You simply changed the wording. Please, can you explain why?
> >
> I think "TeX-Code" is Uwe's preferred phrasing, and is what is in most
> of the docs. As others have said, however, that term is misleading, or
> has become misleading, since InsetERT can be used for almost anything
> you don't want LyX to mess with. I've suggested going back to the term
> "ERT", but changinig the meaning of the acronym to "Editable Raw Text".
> Or, like IBM, using what used to be an acronym without having it mean
> anything.
Whatever the meaning of ERT (I still like the old meaning, btw) the
previous entry correctly stated that the commands should be in ERT.
It is not the same as TeX-code, because the following (where [[ and ]]
delimit ERT)
[[\input{]]name[[}]]
is TeX-code which is not (fully) in ERT. This will not work, whereas the
following
[[\input{name}]]
will work. The entry was correctly stating this fact but replacing ERT
with TeX-code makes it incorrect.
--
Enrico
