On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:45:07 Bo Peng wrote:
I am not in favor of a separate file extension partly because of the
extra work (document, .cpp etc).
I am not either.
If it is decided to use one, I would
prefer .lyz. 'z' is after 'x', it means 'compression', and '.lyz'
actually
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 08:28 +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:45:07 Bo Peng wrote:
Remember, if you have file.lyz and file.lyx in the same directory,
unpacking file.lyz will overwrite file.lyx. You also have to decide if
you want to save file.lyx along with file.lyz
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 09:09:10 Darren Freeman wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 08:28 +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:45:07 Bo Peng wrote:
Remember, if you have file.lyz and file.lyx in the same directory,
unpacking file.lyz will overwrite file.lyx. You also
In case it is not clear (and I agree that it is not) the question about
secondary argument refers to unpacking in place.
Unpacking will prompt for overwrite if file.lyx already exists. It is
the save/saveas part that annoys me most. My understanding is that
embedding or not, I am working on
It is the save/saveas part that annoys me most. My understanding is that
embedding or not, I am working on the same file.
A possible solution to the save/saveas problem might be linking .lyx
and .lyz tightly and say 'save a bundled copy' instead of 'save in
bundled format'. Then, .lyx will
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:45:07 Bo Peng wrote:
> I am not in favor of a separate file extension partly because of the
> extra work (document, .cpp etc).
I am not either.
> If it is decided to use one, I would
> prefer .lyz. 'z' is after 'x', it means 'compression', and '.lyz'
> actually
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 08:28 +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:45:07 Bo Peng wrote:
> > Remember, if you have file.lyz and file.lyx in the same directory,
> > unpacking file.lyz will overwrite file.lyx. You also have to decide if
> > you want to save file.lyx along with
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 09:09:10 Darren Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 08:28 +0100, José Matos wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:45:07 Bo Peng wrote:
> > > Remember, if you have file.lyz and file.lyx in the same directory,
> > > unpacking file.lyz will overwrite file.lyx.
> In case it is not clear (and I agree that it is not) the question about
> secondary argument refers to unpacking in place.
Unpacking will prompt for overwrite if file.lyx already exists. It is
the save/saveas part that annoys me most. My understanding is that
embedding or not, I am working on
> It is the save/saveas part that annoys me most. My understanding is that
> embedding or not, I am working on the same file.
A possible solution to the save/saveas problem might be linking .lyx
and .lyz tightly and say 'save a bundled copy' instead of 'save in
bundled format'. Then, .lyx will
Hi,
I have been busy and did not had much to develop in LyX but here are
some of
my thoughts on the subject of compression.
I don't care so much if we drop the feature of reading compress files
with
lyx as long as the program deals with lyx.gz files. This should satisfy
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:20:42 José Matos wrote:
Hi,
I have been busy and did not had much to develop in LyX but here are
some
of my thoughts on the subject of compression.
I don't care so much if we drop the feature of reading compress files
with
lyx as long as the
I don't care so much if we drop the feature of reading compress files
with
lyx as long as the program deals with lyx.gz files.
I agree that we can drop the compression feature as long as lyx2lyx
can decompress compressed files so that lyx can read it. As for the
embedding feature, the
If we want a different suffix for embedded lyx files why not to call them
.elyx?
I am not in favor of a separate file extension partly because of the
extra work (document, .cpp etc). If it is decided to use one, I would
prefer .lyz. 'z' is after 'x', it means 'compression', and '.lyz'
actually
Hi,
I have been busy and did not had much to develop in LyX but here are
some of
my thoughts on the subject of compression.
I don't care so much if we drop the feature of reading compress files
with
lyx as long as the program deals with lyx.gz files. This should satisfy
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:20:42 José Matos wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been busy and did not had much to develop in LyX but here are
> some
> of my thoughts on the subject of compression.
>
> I don't care so much if we drop the feature of reading compress files
> with
> lyx as long
> I don't care so much if we drop the feature of reading compress files
> with
> lyx as long as the program deals with lyx.gz files.
I agree that we can drop the compression feature as long as lyx2lyx
can decompress compressed files so that lyx can read it. As for the
embedding feature,
> If we want a different suffix for embedded lyx files why not to call them
> .elyx?
I am not in favor of a separate file extension partly because of the
extra work (document, .cpp etc). If it is decided to use one, I would
prefer .lyz. 'z' is after 'x', it means 'compression', and '.lyz'
18 matches
Mail list logo
