Stefan Schimanski writes:
>> I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.
>
> It does? I think I tried and it did not.
I might be wrong. I cannot find reference to that right now.
> A second requirement: the distinction between \newcommand and
> \renewcommand is very fragile. It is far fro
Am 07.01.2009 um 22:45 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for
this case. Is there a way to do this wi
Am 07.01.2009 um 22:45 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for
this case. Is there a way to do this wi
xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?
Why \global?
I think that \global\new
Am 07.01.2009 um 10:59 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
[cc:ing to lyx-devel]
"James C. Sutherland" writes:
Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the "xargs"
package. The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:
\usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
which I discarded. This is
[cc:ing to lyx-devel]
"James C. Sutherland" writes:
> Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the "xargs"
> package. The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:
> \usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
> which I discarded. This is presumably where the "\newcommandx" tag is
> define
