On 2016-03-25, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 03/25/2016 05:13 AM, Kornel Benko wrote:
>> We should select different layout naming to be prepared for the case
>> that someone creates later a new foo1.cls file.
If we use the version naming scheme given in the cls file, this is a very
unlikely case.
In our example case, the version given is
\ProvidesClass{acmsiggraph}[2015/11/04 v0.92 ACM SIGGRAPH class]
A lyx layout could be acmsiggraph0.92.layout or acmsiggraph092.layout or
acmsiggraph-v0.92.layout.
>> Maybe our new layout file names could have versioning independent of
>> the underlying cls.
This would IMO increase the chance of name clashes.
It would only make sense, if there are several incompatible lyx-layouts for
one documentclass version.
> Any such scheme will face some version of this problem, but of course a
> more refined scheme would be better. But note that it isn't that big an
> issue. It would lead to a naming inconsistency, but it wouldn't cause
> actual problems in LyX. The foo1.layout file will still use foo.cls
> (because of the \DeclareLaTeXClass line), and we can still have a
> realfoo1.layout file that uses foo1.cls (for the same reason).
Günter
