On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:23:18PM +0100, Duncan Simpson wrote:
> How about
>
> Use AMS math: (*) automatic (recommended) ( )Yes ( )No
I like this.
> and even perhaps
>
> Validate LaTeX: ( ) Automatic (*)Yes (recommended) ( )No
I don't like this, since it is not clear to me what "validati
How about
Use AMS math: (*) automatic (recommended) ( )Yes ( )No
and even perhaps
Validate LaTeX: ( ) Automatic (*)Yes (recommended) ( )No
where automatic would guess whether it could cope with the LaTeX/plain TeX and
not validate it if saw something odd. This could just be a minimal scan
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 01:34:20PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 11:02:31AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> > But what did Herbert have already, as John said higher up here?
>
> Correct me if I'm dumb, but doesn't Herbert have a package manager
> that allows the user to c
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 11:02:31AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> But what did Herbert have already, as John said higher up here?
Correct me if I'm dumb, but doesn't Herbert have a package manager
that allows the user to control exactly what lyx will automatically
insert the pre-amble ?
I'd muc
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 08:21:05AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Then you may want to consider radio buttons:
> >
> > < > "Use AMS"
> > < > "Don't use AMS"
> > "Let LyX decide"
>
> ... _that_ might indeed be an option. Would that be difficult to implement?
>
> Andre'
Shouldn't
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 09:07:19AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> You have that now... but with validation taking precedence. Do you really
> want to reverse that (i.e. the button taking precedence)? Be careful what
> you wish for.
[Yes. Because validation happens behind a user's back and can dec
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 06:56:50AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:13:38PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > "Suppress AMS" on "Suppress AMS" off
> > "Use AMS" on - +
> > "Use AMS" off - (Valid
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:13:38PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> "Suppress AMS" on "Suppress AMS" off
> "Use AMS" on - +
> "Use AMS" off - (Validation result)
>
> Neither switch is a no-op. Does this make sense?
No,
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 05:51:05PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > I would indeed rather inconvenience a few smart people to doing that,
> > than have a lot of not-so-smart people curse LyX for mysteriously refusing
> > to produ
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 05:51:05PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> I would indeed rather inconvenience a few smart people to doing that,
> than have a lot of not-so-smart people curse LyX for mysteriously refusing
> to produce legal LaTeX.
> So, by all means put in the option of suppressing the
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:27:35AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 12:12:18PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Um, "AMS user detection" goes wrong a lot more easily. Trust me, I know
> > users :-)
> >
> > I think auto-detection is a definite must. That, or always include A
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 12:12:18PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Um, "AMS user detection" goes wrong a lot more easily. Trust me, I know
> users :-)
>
> I think auto-detection is a definite must. That, or always include AMS
> (the price is small), *and* don't allow the user to accidentally turn
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 07:02:27AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Herbert already has a dialog for doing this, no ?
>
> For doing what? For deciding when "AMS auto detection" went wrong?
>
> Andre'
Um, "AMS user detection" goes wrong a lot more easily. Trust me, I know
users :-)
I think aut
> Herbert already has a dialog for doing this, no ?
For doing what? For deciding when "AMS auto detection" went wrong?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 02:44:31PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > So if you insert an URL, you should have to separately switch on "use
> > url package" too?
>
> Would be sensible in fact because this leaves you the power to decide.
And saps the user of the power to work out why their stuff do
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 02:36:36PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> The User should say whether he want AMS included or not. We
> Andre> should not try to guess it from the presence of, say, a macro
> Andre> '\binom' which is AMS, but could as well be the user's own
> Andre> definition
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 10:32:18AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote:
poenitz> Log message: re-enable ams "autodetection" (I still think it
poenitz> is wrong...)
>> Why is it wrong?
Andre> The logic.
Andre> The User shoul
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 10:32:18AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> poenitz> Log message: re-enable ams "autodetection" (I still think it
> poenitz> is wrong...)
>
> Why is it wrong?
The logic.
The User should say whether he want AMS included or not. We should not try
to guess it from the p
18 matches
Mail list logo
