"G. Milde" writes:
> However, LaTeX only accepts one optional argument, so maybe we can do
> without any tricks.
For example, the memoir class accepts two optional arguments for
sectionning commands (one for toc and one for header).
JMarc
On 4.01.09, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> G. Milde a écrit :
>>> ... For layouts accepting several optional
>>> arguments, I guess we'll need to come up with some trick.
>> For styles accepting several mandatory, or optional and mandatory arguments,
>> too.
> Yes, but we do not even support the
G. Milde a écrit :
Not beyond what I wrote... For layouts accepting several optional
arguments, I guess we'll need to come up with some trick.
For styles accepting several mandatory or optional and mandatory arguments,
too.
Yes, but we do not even support them yet. And there should be no ne
On 2.01.09, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Martin Vermeer writes:
> >> IMO the name should be coded in the layout file.
...
> >> 2/ when the menu item string contains %s, the menu code replaces this %s
> >> with the message returned by above.
...
> > Definitely. Any implementation ideas?
> Not be
Martin Vermeer writes:
>> IMO the name should be coded in the layout file.
>>
>> Here is how it could work:
>>
>> 1/ when using getStatus(), the lfun validator uses FuncStatus::message to
>> set a special string that could be
>> - the name of the optional argument for the current layout
>> -
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 02:36:42PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Guenter Milde writes:
> >> There was a discussion on the proper name for this, but I don't
> >> remember anyone coming up with anything better. "Optional argument" is
> >> correct but very LaTeX centric and not clear to the un
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Would that make sense?
yes.
Jürgen
Guenter Milde writes:
>> There was a discussion on the proper name for this, but I don't
>> remember anyone coming up with anything better. "Optional argument" is
>> correct but very LaTeX centric and not clear to the uninitiated.
>
> "LaTeX argument" seems the best choice to me.
IMO the name sh
On 2008-12-30, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:20:23PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2008-12-12, rgheck wrote in gmane.editors.lyx.devel:
>> > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> >> rgheck writes:
>> >>> Support for optional arguments in list environments is weird.
>> You can
Guenter Milde wrote:
On 2008-12-12, rgheck wrote in gmane.editors.lyx.devel:
Really? It seems as if it'd be more useful to have the optional argument
to \item. At least, it'd be more useful for me.
Really? You can use ERT to give an (optional or mandatory) arg to an
\item but you need
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:20:23PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2008-12-12, rgheck wrote in gmane.editors.lyx.devel:
> > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> rgheck writes:
>
> >>> Yes, of course. But there are problems even there. Support for
> >>> optional arguments in list environments is weir
On 2008-12-12, rgheck wrote in gmane.editors.lyx.devel:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> rgheck writes:
>>> Yes, of course. But there are problems even there. Support for
>>> optional arguments in list environments is weird. If you put one in
>>> for the first item, it becomes the optional argume
12 matches
Mail list logo
