On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 09:10:23PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > Uwe, please test that this new patch does what you want it to do. I've > tested it, but only minimally. > > Another issue is that \verbatim* is not presently handled properly by > tex2lyx. If we are going to add verbatim* support for 2.2, then it seems > to me that we should also have tex2lyx support. What's worse is that > tex2lyx makes a total mess of that other file I've attached.
From what I understand of the steps in Development.lyx, this is not
required. Should we change the rules? Currently it states:
7. If you did not implement full tex2lyx support of the new
feature, add a line to src/tex2lyx/TODO.txt describing the missing
bits. Note that it is perfectly fine if you do not add full
tex2lyx support for a new feature: The updating recommendation
above is only issued for the syntax of the produced .lyx file. It
is no problem if some features supported by LyX are still output
as ERT by tex2lyx, since the problems in the past that resulted in
the update recommendation were related to mixed version syntax,
not ERT.
So why can't Uwe just add a line to src/tex2lyx/TODO.txt as
detailed above?
Is the key phrase that I am not taking into account "*full*
tex2lyx support" (that is, "partial" tex2lyx support is
required?)? Or is the problem that correct ERT is not output by
tex2lyx?
Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
