Eran Tromer wrote:
>
> Herbert Voss wrote:
> >
> > Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > > > | > | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays
>behind,
> > > > > | > | so a lyx->latex->lyx cycle can loose information.
> > > >
> > > > as I said: from a users sight lyx->latex is only important
> > > > to find critical errors or to convert some stuff to whatelse
> > > > ever.
> > > > why should I do a lyx->latex->lyx cycle?
> > >
> > > You need it if you work on a document with a coauthor which doesn't have LyX.
> >
> > this is the only reason??
>
> Last week I had to write a largish document in raw LaTeX for precisely
> this reason.
>
> Anyway, there's also this related scenario: you need to make some
> changes to your document on somebody else's computer. You don't have LyX
> 1.2.x installed, so you edit the exported LaTeX. Later back home, you
> struggle to spot all the changes and retype them into LyX.
in this case it's absolutely no problem to do it in latex,
for both.
again: since 1985 a lot of people tried to write converters
from and to tex. all failed, especially for TeX->???, because
tex is a kind of programming language, which can be enhanced
just as you like it. so you don't have a fixed standard.
I agree with Lars: if somebody updates reLyX, it will be
great ... but a soon released 1.2.0 without any bugs is
much more greater ...
Herbert
--
http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/lyx/
