On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 03:53:19PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> Yes. I do use this tricks in my files.
> So what am I suppose to do now with these files ??
Use it as usual. I haven't tried it but I'd guess they can be read in
properly. The only drawback is that you'll loose the optical feed back
in
But _LyX_ never _supported_ passing things like & and \\ to macros.
> Any why you call it a hack? This is a legal latex code.
Sure.
> > And we want that rigid structure, because it enables us to read things like
> > \over, \choose and \cal properly - which I value much higher.
>
> But why do you need to read those commands ? This is TeX syntax, not latex.
Because a few programs out there produce this kind of syntax when asked to
exprot to LaTeX and because a few people use it in their own writing.
> If you want to improve reading of latex files, you can improve reLyX.
No way.
> There is no need to support this in mathed.
reLyX should not know anything about mathed.
> > > Furthermore, why did you change the behavior of the { key ?
> >
> > For the sake of consistency:
> > You want a \{ in the output? - You have to type \{ in the input.
>
> But mathed is not consistent with latex.
Probably not. But I want it to move in this direction.
> For example, you don't need to press the { key when typing \frac{1}{2}.
You do not need to. But it does not hurt either.
> I think that it is more important to have a simple UI, than to have
> consistency with latex.
I try to accomodate both wishes. But if there is some structural decision
to make, I'd probably go the LaTeX way - for a few reasons: It's what _I_
need, it's what the majority of people here (all coming admittedly from a
LaTeX background) expect, and it's what is usually implemented with less
pain. Note that the new parser is _much_ simpler than the old one although
it does not understand less constructs.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz ............................................. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
