Dear Jürgen,
On 2017-04-19, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 18.04.2017, 22:34 +0000 schrieb Guenter Milde:
>> It is an undocumented internal. At least some developers don't bother
>> about the actual LaTeX written, so the difference between specialchar
>> and literal char went unnoticed until now.
> Note that I am not talking about the difference between the unicode
> char and the special char. I am talking about the fact that the special
> char outputs \ldots, not \dots. This I would not call "undocumented".
This difference is, of course, not hidden. But the actual LaTeX macro
used for an text ellipsis is not mentioned in the documentation, hence an
undocumented feature.
...
>> > In any case, we should not replace one macro by the other behind the
>> > back of users, just because they are equivalent by default (outside
>> > math, that is).
LyX reserves the right to generate different output with different versions
("Änderungen die dem technischen Fortschritt dienen …").
But I agree with you, that this is no charter for arbitrary changes without
good reason.
Removing redundancy seemed a good reason to me.
> So please make sure lyx2lyx generates identical LaTeX output if you
> insist to ditch the special char.
I am in a dilemma here:
a) Until now, the Menu entry and pre-configured shortcut for "text ellipsis"
use the special char. Converting the special char to ERT, will annoy
80% of the users for the sake of 1% experts with local redefinition.
b) Merging the representation resulting in \ldots and the representation
resulting in \dots results in data loss. We just had the "dash"
example on how this may lead to even more complication later.
I retrace the proposal to remove the "ldots" special char value.
My suggestion is, to change the menu and key bindings from
"specialchar-insert ldots" to "unicode insert 2026" (…).
+ works with ellipsis.sty (see below),
+ no change to existing documents,
+ simpler content of the LyX file.
The "ldots" special char may be deprecated and removed in some years
(when no longer in active use). Then, converting the inset to ERT will
only affect a minority.
>> > Rather than that, we could consider to support the ellipsis (or
>> > xellipsis) package, or csquotes, or a combination of those.
ellipsis.sty does not work with \ldots. Changing menu and key bindings to
the literal Unicode character, we ensure compatibility with ellipsis.sty.
Günter
BTW:
>> \usepackage{ellipsis} in the user preamble
or in your local documentclass definition
>> should also solve your problem with […].
