Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > 1, Patch to math_Parser.C
| > 2. New version of math_hash.C (a diff is twice the size)
| > 3. A keyword list for those Lars et al. to verify everything is in place.
| > 4. A patch to gperf 2.7.x you might need (gperf will, or was going to, include
|
> 1, Patch to math_Parser.C
> 2. New version of math_hash.C (a diff is twice the size)
> 3. A keyword list for those Lars et al. to verify everything is in place.
> 4. A patch to gperf 2.7.x you might need (gperf will, or was going to, include
Ok... I just had a closer look at it.
1. It does no
> but it is needed.
I noticed that ;-}
> Have you hadd a look at lib/examples/Math_macros.lyx?
Yes. I doesn't tell much about the internal structure, though.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I have reconsidered, not that I will allow patches, but that we should
| > not revert any patches. Since it seems that only macros have problems,
| > we should just follow the code patch (reading) of InsetFormulaMacro,
| > insert debug output and find
> PS: I just noticed that current CVS does not contain the patch for the
> matrix bug yet. Unfortunately I don't seem to have it stored locally, so I
> hope it will be somewhere in the list archive...
It is ;-)
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg19585.html
Andre'
--
André
> I have reconsidered, not that I will allow patches, but that we should
> not revert any patches. Since it seems that only macros have problems,
> we should just follow the code patch (reading) of InsetFormulaMacro,
> insert debug output and find out where we loose the input that we
> obviously r
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > If nobody applied my previous patch, this one might be more tempting.
|
| Well, it is not that your previous patch was not tempting enough...
|
| It just happens that the clean up introduced a bug in mathed (it cannot
| read in macros anymore) and L
> If nobody applied my previous patch, this one might be more tempting.
Well, it is not that your previous patch was not tempting enough...
It just happens that the clean up introduced a bug in mathed (it cannot
read in macros anymore) and Lars refuses (and I'd support this stance) to
accept any
If nobody applied my previous patch, this one might be more tempting. The
math_Parser code is a mess, and does not follow TeX anyway (which has the
benefit of making the code simpler anyway). While it is buggy, for example
only letter, category 11 to be precise, should quality for multiple cha
