On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:44:05PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 05/04/2017 07:15 PM, Andrew Parsloe wrote: > > I would like to see the following small change made to the script > > ext_copy.py for 2.3.0: > > > > Currently it contains the lines: > > > > # output directory > > to_dir = args[1] > > if targext != '.': > > to_dir += "." + targext > > > > Change this to > > > > # output directory > > if targext == '+': > > to_dir = os.path.dirname(args[1]) > > else: > > to_dir = args[1] > > if targext != '.': > > to_dir += "." + targext > > > > With the change, by using the option -t + this allows a file to be > > copied back to the document directory at the same level and not > > 'buried' in a subdirectory. Some years ago I asked about this and > > Richard explained the need to use a subdirectory to prevent the > > document directory being swamped by sundry files from html export. But > > there are other use cases. I have one in which a single file is copied > > back. Not to be able to place it directly in the document directory > > seems an arbitrary and unnecessary restriction. With my proposed change > > > > python -tt $$s/scripts/ext_copy.py -e lyxdat -t + $$i $$o > > > > copies <filename>.lyxdat back to the home directory of <filename>.lyx. > > Without the + option, ext_copy.py behaves as before. (Whether + is an > > appropriate character is moot. The natural one would perhaps be . but > > that is already used.) > > No objection from me.
Any objection from anyone else? Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
