José Matos wrote:
> Does anyone has any problem with this approach?
Sounds pragmatic enough for me.
Jürgen
On Monday 21 May 2007 3:22:20 pm Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> > I am sure you don't want to hear this but you changed the file format
> > according to our more restrictive 1.5 view. :-)
>
> Really?
If we are in pedantic mode the answer is yes. :-)
> > We must bump the file
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 9:01:24 am Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> José> 1.6 stuff, lyx is ignorant about layout files and although it
> ^lyx2lyx?
Sometimes I confuse lyx2lyx with lyx. ;-)
> José> should not it is too late.
--
José Abílio
> "José" == José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
José> On Monday 21 May 2007 3:36:51 pm Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> More seriously, when an optional argument is read and not declared
>> in the layout file, lyx2lyx (or maybe LyX itself) could just insert
>> '[' and ']' as ERT.
José> 1.6
On Monday 21 May 2007 3:36:51 pm Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> More seriously, when an optional argument is read and not declared in
> the layout file, lyx2lyx (or maybe LyX itself) could just insert '['
> and ']' as ERT.
1.6 stuff, lyx is ignorant about layout files and although it should not i
> "José" == José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
José> On Monday 21 May 2007 3:00:55 pm Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Handling layout files updates through lyx2lyx is not very nice IMO.
José> I agree. What do you propose in this case?
Me? Err, nothing, why?
More seriously, when an opti
José Matos wrote:
> I am sure you don't want to hear this but you changed the file format
> according to our more restrictive 1.5 view. :-)
Really?
> We must bump the file format and write a pluggin to output the extra
> arguments as ERT in lyx-1.4.
>
> I will do it later if nobody wants to d
On Monday 21 May 2007 3:00:55 pm Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Handling layout files updates through lyx2lyx is not very nice IMO.
I agree. What do you propose in this case?
> JMarc
--
José Abílio
> "José" == José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
José> On Sunday 20 May 2007 9:28:51 am Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Adds optional arguments whereever this makes sense.
>>
>> OK?
José> I am sure you don't want to hear this but you changed the file
José> format according to our more restr
On Sunday 20 May 2007 9:28:51 am Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Adds optional arguments whereever this makes sense.
>
> OK?
I am sure you don't want to hear this but you changed the file format
according to our more restrictive 1.5 view. :-)
We must bump the file format and write a pluggin to o
> "Jürgen" == Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jürgen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> So except for part, these are keyval-type options, right?
Jürgen> only in case of frames
>> We'll have to find out how to handle them later. I am not sure how
>> it is better that inserting an
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> So except for part, these are keyval-type options, right?
only in case of frames
> We'll have
> to find out how to handle them later. I am not sure how it is better
> that inserting an ERT, especially since this requires understanding
> the underlying LaTeX mechani
> "Jürgen" == Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jürgen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> It is difficult from the patch to see what commands are involved.
>> What kind of optional arguments are covered?
Jürgen> - The lists (itemize, enumerate, desciption) take optional
Jürgen> argu
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> It is difficult from the patch to see what commands are involved. What
> kind of optional arguments are covered?
- The lists (itemize, enumerate, desciption) take optional arguments
(important especially for overlay specifications)
- The pause command also takes one
> "Jürgen" == Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jürgen> Adds optional arguments whereever this makes sense. OK? Jürgen
It is difficult from the patch to see what commands are involved. What
kind of optional arguments are covered?
JMarc
Bo Peng wrote:
> Still no fragile support?
No. Too difficult AFAICS.
Jürgen
On 5/20/07, Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adds optional arguments whereever this makes sense.
>
> OK?
Still no fragile support?
Bo
> Adds optional arguments whereever this makes sense.
>
> OK?
Yes.
regarsd Uwe
18 matches
Mail list logo
