On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:00:52PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>>> "poenitz" == poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> poenitz> CVSROOT: /usr/local/lyx/cvsroot Module name: lyx-devel
> poenitz> Repository: lyx-devel/src/mathed/ Changes by:
> poenitz> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/01/08 21:28:29
>
> poenitz> Modified files: lyx-devel/src/mathed/: math_decorationinset.C
> poenitz> math_decorationinset.h
>
> poenitz> Log message: correct a wrong nod
>
> Thanks for the fix in validate. Should I do the same in 1.3.x?
Yes, please.
> However, I am not sure of this one:
>
> bool MathDecorationInset::ams() const
> {
> - return
> + return
> + key_->name == "overleftarrow" ||
> + key_->name == "overrightarrow" ||
> key_->name == "overleftrightarrow" ||
> key_->name == "underleftarrow" ||
> key_->name == "underrightarrow" ||
>
> \overleftarrow and \overrightarrow do not _require_ amsmath, since
> they are already provided by latex. AMS-LateX provides an alternative
> definition, but I am not sure it is different...
I see. I just grepped through AMS and found over(left|right)arrow there
and assumed AMS was needed.
Well, not requiring ams in these cases creates an interesting situation:
What version is used depends on whether other places of the document
require AMS.
Andre'
