On 2015-02-10, Lior Silberman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes ><lasgout...@lyx.org> wrote: >> Le 10/02/2015 15:25, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>>> I'm curious -- what is the use case here? Do you have custom LaTeX >>> definitions and you want to provide symbols for them? Or do you add >>> support for more packages? The reason I'm asking is maybe we would >>> like to have some of it upstream. >>> I'm trying to think about how what you're proposing is consistent with >>> other situations in LyX. For the bind file, we don't require the user >>> to copy the lib bind. We just add on anything in the user bind. So >>> that seems consistent. On the other hand, for layouts you need to copy >>> the entire file, which also makes sense to me. OTOH, the unicodesymbols file would also benefit from this approach. Users could change preference of loaded packages or our decisions in ambiguous cases as well as fill gaps without copying the whole file. > Math macros don't work for this use case, both because they can't > redefine already-known symbols It used to work with a math-macro definition in a LyX-note or comment... > and because they are a per-document rather than per-user. This is a pain, as well as the fact that the definition clutters the document(s). (I solved this (kind of) with an include-file full of math macros.) >> I general it would be nice to have a user file that can read the >> corresponding system file and then make modifications. Think of the *.bind file analogy. It is also nice to be able to split the file (I am thinking about unicodesymbols here) into sections... Günter
