On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Joachim Heidemeier wrote:
> I would propose to define array.sty as a prerequisite for table
> support in lyx and use the format mechanism via \newcolumntype as the
> standard way for lyx. It is from the perspective of an "Office-trained" user
> much easier to understand. "In tables, you have to use column or cell
> formats, too..."
I disagree. Lyx, through the layout file mechanism, can be used as a front
end to a number of different document classes. Some of these classes
actually work as intended; that is, they define a document structure which
does not require extra packages. If lyx forces the use of array.sty (or
other packages) then these classes may be unuseable.
For example, the AMS has a class which defines tables to look a certain
way. If array is loaded on top of the AMS classes, and changes the way
they look, then you are no longer writing a document which conforms to the
AMS standards, and it will be rejected.
Alot of these packages are ways of getting around problems in the
standard latex classes. The correct way would be for new classes (as was
done with KOMA script) to be written. Modifying lyx to correct the
problems with the standard classes runs the risk of breaking other
classes.
Rod
_________________________________________________________________
rod | "Beneath the waves, the waves / That's where I will be /
| I'm going to see the cow beneath the sea."
| They Might Be Giants, Lincoln
