am Sonntag, 26. August 2007 12:29 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> > i was especially interested in the new glossary feature, and basicly it's
> > just what i was wishing for. but then again, i can't figure out how to
> > pass options to the nomencl package; it seems it's loaded without options
> > ha
m.eik michalke wrote:
> i was especially interested in the new glossary feature, and basicly it's
> just what i was wishing for. but then again, i can't figure out how to pass
> options to the nomencl package; it seems it's loaded without options
> hardcoded (src/LaTeXFeatures.cpp), and so you get
José Matos schrieb:
On Sunday 29 April 2007 16:48:35 Michael Gerz wrote:
Hi,
the attached patch changes some uses of the term "glossary" to
"nomenclature".
I will commit as soon as I get two OKs. (José vote will count as two).
AFAIU this is consensual, so please go ahead.
As so
On Sunday 29 April 2007 16:48:35 Michael Gerz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the attached patch changes some uses of the term "glossary" to
> "nomenclature".
>
> I will commit as soon as I get two OKs. (José vote will count as two).
AFAIU this is consensual, so please go ahead.
> Michael
--
José Abílio
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> the attached patch changes some uses of the term "glossary" to
"nomenclature".
>
> I will commit as soon as I get two OKs. (José vote will count as two).
Why that? The official name for this is "Glossary" and is used in all my
books I have?
I therefore vote for no, so n
Uwe Stöhr schrieb:
Michael Gerz schrieb:
Please note that LaTeX will produce a "glossary" with the title
"Nomenclature" (try it out if you don't believe).
Oops, indeed.
Ok I give an OK.
Fine. Now I need a second OK to proceed. Guys?
Michael
Michael Gerz schrieb:
Please note that LaTeX will produce a "glossary" with the title
"Nomenclature" (try it out if you don't believe).
Oops, indeed.
Ok I give an OK.
regards Uwe
Uwe Stöhr schrieb:
> the attached patch changes some uses of the term "glossary" to
"nomenclature".
>
> I will commit as soon as I get two OKs. (José vote will count as two).
Why that? The official name for this is "Glossary" and is used in all
my books I have?
I therefore vote for no, so no
> the attached patch changes some uses of the term "glossary" to "nomenclature".
>
> I will commit as soon as I get two OKs. (José vote will count as two).
Why that? The official name for this is "Glossary" and is used in all my books
I have?
I therefore vote for no, so now you need three OKs ;
Hi,
the attached patch changes some uses of the term "glossary" to
"nomenclature".
I will commit as soon as I get two OKs. (José vote will count as two).
Michael
José Matos schrieb:
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 8:53:54 am Georg Baum wrote:
What I mean is that the insets that creates a no
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 8:53:54 am Georg Baum wrote:
>
> What I mean is that the insets that creates a nomenclature for LaTeX should
> not create a glossary for docbook. This is confusing, therefore the
> nomenclature inset should output something else than glossary entries for
> docbook IMHO.
In practice there is no single difference. All packages accept math symbols
and sort them in an identical way. That is why we can replace them easily.
Ugras
On 4/25/07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> umm..
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> umm.. Really, what is the difference?? :-)
One is for words and the other for mathematical notation. Or at least
I thought so.
JMarc
umm.. Really, what is the difference?? :-)
On 4/25/07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> This is in my TODO list. I have already finished the multiple
Ozgur> indices and thinking on extending it for multiple g
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> This is in my TODO list. I have already finished the multiple
Ozgur> indices and thinking on extending it for multiple glossaries.
Ozgur> But how will users react for this? Two glossary packages will
Ozgur> create confusion.
N
On 4/25/07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> Terminology fits good, but Jean-Marc has a point. The title of
Ozgur> the glossary is Nomenclature by default and it will be wise to
Ozgur> keep the same word for me
José Matos wrote:
> On Monday 23 April 2007 5:52:23 pm Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>
>> Georg> The only problem with this is the docbook output. AFAIK docbook
>> Georg> does not support a nomenclature or list of symbols. Maybe one
>> Georg> could use variablelist, but it does not fit exactly. IMH
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> Terminology fits good, but Jean-Marc has a point. The title of
Ozgur> the glossary is Nomenclature by default and it will be wise to
Ozgur> keep the same word for menu references for the sake of
Ozgur> consistency.
Yes, I think
Terminology fits good, but Jean-Marc has a point. The title of the glossary
is Nomenclature by default and it will be wise to keep the same word for
menu references for the sake of consistency.
Anybody else wishes switching for another glossary package? It will be easy
for me to implement it (if
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Michael Gerz wrote:
Ozgur Ugras BARAN schrieb:
Notation Entry/ Notation List in user visible places, IMHO. People
complained about Nomenclature word before. (Some people also complained
for
Notation word :-) ).
Actually, it was me who complained about "Notation" :-) Thi
Ozgur Ugras BARAN schrieb:
Notation Entry/ Notation List in user visible places, IMHO. People
complained about Nomenclature word before. (Some people also
complained for
Notation word :-) ).
Actually, it was me who complained about "Notation" :-) This term - at
least in German - is rather mean
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> Notation Entry/ Notation List in user visible places, IMHO.
Ozgur> People complained about Nomenclature word before. (Some people
Ozgur> also complained for Notation word :-) ).
But Nomenclature is the word that appears in the
Notation Entry/ Notation List in user visible places, IMHO. People
complained about Nomenclature word before. (Some people also complained for
Notation word :-) ).
And maybe a warning for glotex in the lyx documentation.
On 4/24/07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ozgur"
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> I like the doc version which omits the oldnomencl stuff. But I
Ozgur> observed one single problem: You are invoking makeindex for
Ozgur> nomencl after checking the the files with extensions .nlo OR
Ozgur> .glo exists.. However,
I like the doc version which omits the oldnomencl stuff. But I observed one
single problem: You are invoking makeindex for nomencl after checking the
the files with extensions .nlo OR .glo exists.. However, .glo extension is
also used by glotex. Therefore, if the user is as adventurous as to use
g
On Monday 23 April 2007 5:52:23 pm Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> Georg> The only problem with this is the docbook output. AFAIK docbook
> Georg> does not support a nomenclature or list of symbols. Maybe one
> Georg> could use variablelist, but it does not fit exactly. IMHO
> Georg> glossary shoul
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> I prefer the doc version, because the tests in tex seem to be error
>> prone to me.
>>
>> What about the following updated version? Only the LaTeXFeatures
>> part has been changed.
Georg> Fine with me.
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> What I forgot: Of course you can misuse the nomencl stuff for
Georg> glossaries and redefine \nomname in the preamble, but I don't
Georg> think that LyX should do that.
Indeed.
JMarc
Georg Baum wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Then the is the problem of glossary versus nomenclature. At least my
>> version of nomencl.sty writes a helpful "Nomenclature" heading in
>> front of my glossary. This is stupid.
>
> Did you see Ugras' explanation for the choice of nomencl? IMHO
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I prefer the doc version, because the tests in tex seem to be
> error prone to me.
>
> What about the following updated version? Only the LaTeXFeatures part
> has been changed.
Fine with me. Do you put that in, or shall I do?
> Then the is the problem of glossary v
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Here are my solutions: config.diff follows the idea suggested
Georg> by Jean-Marc: Test for the nomencl version in chkconfig.ltx and
Georg> put either "nomencl" or "nomencl" and "oldnomencl" to the
Georg> packages.list file. Then the a
Am Freitag, 20. April 2007 11:59 schrieb Ozgur Ugras BARAN:
> If you have a solution, go ahead, since I haven't got one but got an idea
> only :). I just try to act responsible :)
Good guy :-)
Here are my solutions: config.diff follows the idea suggested by Jean-Marc:
Test for the nomencl versi
If you have a solution, go ahead, since I haven't got one but got an idea
only :). I just try to act responsible :)
I can still give you a hand, if you wish..
On 4/20/07, Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If I can find a computer this weekend and if
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If I can find a computer this weekend and if nobody is already caring
> about nomencl.sty version mess, I'll try to find a solution.
As I wrote some days ago I have a solution that is almost finished and that
I will send when Jean-Marc is back. Of course if
On Thursday 19 April 2007 3:46:37 pm Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If I can find a computer this weekend and if nobody is already caring about
> nomencl.sty version mess, I'll try to find a solution.
Please do. :-)
> Maybe you may wish to postpone Beta-2 until I submit the patch. Indee
Am Dienstag, 7. November 2006 21:05 schrieb Michael Gerz:
> Glossary sounds much better. I am going to change this, if you don't
mind.
>
> OK?
With me certainly. Please don't forget the documentation in Extended.lyx.
Georg
Georg Baum wrote:
Because Ugras thought that nomenclature is not well known by non-native
speakers. I don't know Notation either. Should we replace it
with "Glossary and "Glossary Entry" instead?"
As you know, the term "Notation" is quite generic in German. I guess the
same holds in English
Am Dienstag, 7. November 2006 20:51 schrieb Michael Gerz:
> Hi,
>
> why are the menu entries called "Notation"?
>
> stdmenus.ui:Item "Notation Entry" "nomencl-insert"
> stdmenus.ui:Item "Notation List" "nomencl-print"
> stdtoolbars.ui: Item "Insert notation entry" "nomencl
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:50:31AM +0100, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> It is so rare that, It is fantastic not to be wrong. :))
>
> then it should work well for the case \command[][]{}
>
> any comments on backporting this feature to lyx 1.4.x ?? it shouldn't
> take too much time for me..
Have it
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:19:14AM +0100, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> Therefore the command and its parameters are isolated from anything else,
> including another {}. Am I wrong?? (probably I am :) )
Erm. No. I was probably thinking about tex2lyx or such.
Should be pretty safe given this explan
OK.. I'll start next week, but I am not sure when I can finish. It can take
time depending on my free time.
I am very glad that you will handle lyx2lyx conversion :)
On Monday 11 September 2006 13:24, Georg Baum wrote:
> You change InsetCommandParams to support a name,value pair interface for
> parameters and send it to the list for review. When it is OK you can change
> the existing insets to use the new interface. After that Jose or I create
> the necessary l
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> Well, I didn't like the way to store LaTeX commands, either. I am not
> sure that I am brave enough to (or capable of) develop that part, but
> I can give it a try.
Great!
> However, in my incredibly humble opinion, the syntax should be based
> on a markup language (pr
Well, I didn't like the way to store LaTeX commands, either. I am not
sure that I am brave enough to (or capable of) develop that part, but
I can give it a try.
However, in my incredibly humble opinion, the syntax should be based
on a markup language (preferably XML), which is planned for lyx-1.6
Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> It is so rare that, It is fantastic not to be wrong. :))
>
> then it should work well for the case \command[][]{}
The fact that InsetCommand stores its parameters in LaTeX-like syntax in LyX
files is a historical mistake, so I would rather avoid to extend this even
fu
It is so rare that, It is fantastic not to be wrong. :))
then it should work well for the case \command[][]{}
any comments on backporting this feature to lyx 1.4.x ?? it shouldn't
take too much time for me..
On 9/11/06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ug
> "Ozgur" == Ozgur Ugras BARAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ozgur> \begin_inset LatexCommand \command[]{}{} \end_inset
Ozgur> Therefore the command and its parameters are isolated from
Ozgur> anything else, including another {}. Am I wrong?? (probably I
Ozgur> am :) )
No you are not!
JMarc
On 9/8/06, Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 03:24:56PM +0100, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> and last of all, I developed this against the lyx 1.5.x. However, (if
> insetCommandParams mod. is correct) there is no reason not to add this
> functionality in lyx 1.4.x
>
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 03:24:56PM +0100, Ozgur Ugras BARAN wrote:
> and last of all, I developed this against the lyx 1.5.x. However, (if
> insetCommandParams mod. is correct) there is no reason not to add this
> functionality in lyx 1.4.x
>
> with my kindest regards,
As usual: Things about whic
"Ozgur Ugras BARAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi all,
|
| I added support for nomencl for glossary entries in the lyx code (qt3
| only, yet). If anybody interests in this functionality, I'll be glad
| to add my contribution.
Contributions are always welcome.
Do you have a patch we can look
50 matches
Mail list logo
