Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| Martin> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 04:57:20PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
>>> I'm saying there isn't far to go to get this to a much better state
>>> than it is now. Most of the work has been done already -- in this
>>> patch in fact -- just the last 10% to get rid of "free floating"
>>> optional arguement insets (and preferably section insets similar to
>>> many of the previous discussions).
>>>
>>> I just don't want the current patch in 1.3.0 -- the work should be
>>> finished before then otherwise there'll be some yucky conversions
>>> to handle.
>
| Martin> Sorry, I give up. If it's only as little as 10%, and you
| Martin> actually know how to, why don't *you* do it?
|
| Don't pay too much attention to what Allan says. Nobody does :)
>
| I for one think that this patch is what we need now, even if it has to
| be superceded by something better in a later lyx version. And contrary
| to what allan would have us believe, there are cases where this
| optional argument cannot be linked to any special bibtiem-like inset.
>
| Personally, I am planning to apply the patch, unless Lars objects (in
| which case I will have no other choice than to say that I knew from
| the beginning that the patch was wrong :).
I won't say "no", but I do agree with Allan.
I really think that a proper InsetSectioning is the right way to go,
but I also realize that we will not be able to get anyone to do that
work now. So I will go with the patch "as-is". Sure we might get some
compability problems later, but we have handled a lot more severe
compability stuff earlier (pextra stuff.../ ert ...)
On a side one... one of the huge problems with LyXText today is all
the hardcoded "labels", to be able to generalize that code at put it
into layout files would be really, really great.
--
Lgb
