On Wednesday 29 October 2003 10:04, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:32:40AM +0000, Jose' Matos spake thusly:
> > This code is a mess (it is my code so I am allowed to say that). I have
> > discussed this two years ago with Jürgen Vigna and it appears that the
> > latex output code was redone to take in account the nested environments.
>
> Speaking about which, looking at buffer.C:
>
> 1794 case LATEX_COMMAND:
> 1795 if (depth != 0)
> 1796 error(ErrorItem(_("Error"), _("Wrong depth for
> LatexType Command."), par->id(), 0, par->size())); 1797
>
> Apparently depth != 0 is not supposed to happen for a
> (paragraph-style) command (apparently mostly sectioning headers,
> right?)
It shouldn't but it is possible. You put a chapter inside a list in lyx, the
resulting document isn't valid, but it is possible. This is the case I want
to catch.
> Then a bit lower:
>
> 1845 sgml::openTag(ofs, depth + command_depth, false,
> command_name); 1846
> 1847 item_name = c_params.empty() ? "title" : c_params;
> 1848 sgml::openTag(ofs, depth + 1 + command_depth, false,
> item_na
>
> and
>
> 1901 // write closing SGML tags
> 1902 switch (style->latextype) {
> 1903 case LATEX_COMMAND:
> 1904 end_tag = c_params.empty() ? "title" : c_params;
> 1905 sgml::closeTag(ofs, depth + command_depth,
> 1906 false, end_tag);
> 1907 break;
>
> Do we really need 'depth + command_depth' here, rather than just
> 'command_depth'? Apparently it only affects the indent in the .sgml
> output file.
The second argument of open and closeTag are only related with indentation.
The idea was to have a nice output. But sure we can get rid of them.
> ...and should we somehow get rid of the '// environment tag closing'
> stanza at the beginning? Yes, this looks messy :-) but I don't dare to
> touch it without a non-trivial DocBook LyX test file...
Such as it is now no, for that we need to have in account the nested
structure, I will have a look to the lastex export model and report it later.
> - Martin
--
José Abílio
