stefano franchi wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Georg Baum > <georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: > > stefano franchi wrote: > > > >> Thanks Wilfried, this is great. > > > > Yes, I also think that is is a good mixture of stuff to test. > > > >> I tried importing the latex files into LyX (2.0.7) and compiling to > >> pdf and everything seems ok. However, there are a few spots in the > >> imported LyX in which Latex code comes over untranslated. Could you, > >> or anyone else with a better understanding of LaTeX math, tell me if > >> the same effect can be reproduced with LyX only commands (i.e if the > >> Latex code is just a failure of the tex2lyx converter or if Latex is > >> using features not currently available in LyX)? > > > > I had a quick look, and I did not find any tex2lyx problem. LyX does not > > support \verb (this occurs a lot), and LyX mathed does neither support \hbox > > nor \notag. Unless I overlooked something the result is as good as it can > > get. > > > > > > > Wilfried, Georg, > > should the test be a simple union of the two documents? Or is > eqn2.tex simply using the same features (or possibly a subset) of > eqn.tex? > Sorry for the silly question, but it is difficult to judge the > complexity and kind of Latex Math constructs when you do not have > daily practice with them.
Hello! The historical reason for us to keep both test documents was that eqns2.tex was generated by LyX and we wanted to test if latex2rtf can handle it. eqns.tex is a collection of code which had caused problems in latex2rtf. Both are not comprehensive. The question is whether we want to support the full set of (AMS)LaTeX commands -- see e.g. the amsmath user's guide (amsldoc.pdf) and the Short Math Guide for LaTeX (short-math-guide.pdf) on page http://www.ams.org/publications/authors/tex/amslatex -- which seems to require also enhancing the LaTeX2LyX importer, or restrict import and export to the markup set which is currently implemented in LyX. Wilfried -- Wilfried Hennings
