On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
<lasgout...@lyx.org> wrote:
> Le 15/10/2014 11:16, Alfredo Braunstein a écrit :
>>>
>>> I don't understand: I guess many inset just inherit their ::latex method.
>>> What is the risk exactly.
>>
>>
>> Advanced Search & replace all [math:x]->[math:y] in a document containing
>>
>> [disabled branch: blah blah][math:x]
>>
>> the result is
>>
>> [math:y]
>
>
> OK, but what is the link between InsetERT not having a ::latex method ans
> not outputting anything? The InsetText::latex is sufficiently flexible to
> handle it. Likewise for many insets derived from InsetCommand (label,
> bibitem...).
>
>>> Also, you may want to take in account the following method:
>>>
>>> /// Is the content of this inset part of the output document?
>>> virtual bool producesOutput() const { return true; }
>>> You could also check whether there have been some output after calling
>>> ::latex and add a special marker otherwise.
>>
>>
>> Where? *::latex gets called recursively... The advanced s&r stuff
>> seems pretty complicated to me (and, from a quick look, a bit of a
>> hack if you ask me. No offense to the authors I hope, it is actually
>> an amazing feature).
>
>
> It is a complet ehack. But this hack was easier to write than the proper
> version (especially when one wants to do regex).
>
>> Adding a force_output flag could be an easy fix
>> to the dataloss with no negative consequences that I can think of.
>> What is your concern?
>
>
> My concern is that we already have two pices of code where we override the
> "no output property":
>
> * in Inset::addToToc, because we sometimes want the headings inside notes to
> be available inthe outline sidebar
>
> * in Buffer::updateStatistics, because some people want to have the words in
> their notes or inactive branches counted
>
> Before we had yet another thing for yet another use, I was wondering whether
> we could have a unique mechanism with correct semantics to do that.
>
> One poiibility would be to be able to control what Inset::producesOutput
> returns (maybe via a Buffer or BufferParams parameter, I don't know). The
> explicit code in InsetNote should actually rely on producesOutput instead of
> looking at type of note.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced. In your solution we will need
to change the Buffer / BufferParams property temporarily before
calling latex and restore it afterwards. It seems a bit hackish...
Because ultimately, it's not a buffer property what we need, it is
really a parameter for the latex export. It's the same for the two
examples you cite IIUC, a temporary change only related to that
specific operation.
A/
