Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As Guenter wrote, this is probably not a lyx2lyx problem. Where is your
> macro defined? In the preamble or as a math macro?
Of course, I could have read the example file by myself ;) So in the
preamble it is.
The only way to support such things
Philippe Charpentier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> here is an other bug in lyx2lyx : suppose, with lyx-1.5 you define a
> command \mytextrm to be \textrm
> and type, in a math formula \mytextrm{équicontinu}. This is well
> traduced in latex by lyx-1.5.
> But if you open the f
Philippe Charpentier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> here is another bug in lyx2lyx : suppose, with lyx-1.5 you define a
> command \mytextrm to be \textrm
This is a problematic case, as LyX cannot know that the argument of
this command should be in text mode.
> and type, in a math formula
> \myt
Hi,
here is an other bug in lyx2lyx : suppose, with lyx-1.5 you define a
command \mytextrm to be \textrm
and type, in a math formula \mytextrm{équicontinu}. This is well
traduced in latex by lyx-1.5.
But if you open the file with lyx-1.6 then the latex output is (for
example):
$F\,\mytextrm
