Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Agreed. But this is where more work is needed... We could also extend the syntax to allow several entries for the same character (and use a multimap internally). I am not sure whether we have ordering guarantees of the equivalent entries in this case... At the

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

23/08/2013 09:59, Jürgen Spitzmüller: At the cost of extending the length (but also increasing the readability) of this file, I would consider to change the syntax to something along the line of Layout/Language/LaTeXFont, i.e. UnicodeSymbol 0x00ed UnicodeName LATIN SMALL

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Sure. This tabular-like syntax has reached the point of no return IMO. Its size is currently 250k and, from your example, it will probably double in size. This is not too terrible IMO. And if it gets too long, we could split it and create files for individual

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

23/08/2013 10:24, Jürgen Spitzmüller: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Sure. This tabular-like syntax has reached the point of no return IMO. Its size is currently 250k and, from your example, it will probably double in size. This is not too terrible IMO. And if it gets too long, we could split it

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: I was actually concerned with additional load time, but it might be just negligible. I see. I don't know, but of course we can/should track that before actually changing things. Jürgen

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 08/23/2013 04:24 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Sure. This tabular-like syntax has reached the point of no return IMO. Its size is currently 250k and, from your example, it will probably double in size. This is not too terrible IMO. And if it gets too long, we

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Richard Heck wrote: If you really want to do this, I could do it with Perl in a few minutes. I'd just need to know exactly what the new syntax was supposed to be, and how it was derived from the old syntax. Thanks. Anyway, this is certainly 2.2 stuff. Jürgen

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Agreed. But this is where more work is needed... We could also extend > the syntax to allow several entries for the same character (and use a > multimap internally). I am not sure whether we have ordering guarantees > of the equivalent entries in this case... At

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

23/08/2013 09:59, Jürgen Spitzmüller: At the cost of extending the length (but also increasing the readability) of this file, I would consider to change the syntax to something along the line of Layout/Language/LaTeXFont, i.e. UnicodeSymbol 0x00ed UnicodeName "LATIN SMALL

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Sure. This tabular-like syntax has reached the point of no return IMO. > Its size is currently 250k and, from your example, it will probably > double in size. This is not too terrible IMO. And if it gets too long, we could split it and create files for individual

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

23/08/2013 10:24, Jürgen Spitzmüller: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Sure. This tabular-like syntax has reached the point of no return IMO. Its size is currently 250k and, from your example, it will probably double in size. This is not too terrible IMO. And if it gets too long, we could split it

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > I was actually concerned with additional load time, but it might be just > negligible. I see. I don't know, but of course we can/should track that before actually changing things. Jürgen

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 08/23/2013 04:24 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Sure. This tabular-like syntax has reached the point of no return IMO. Its size is currently 250k and, from your example, it will probably double in size. This is not too terrible IMO. And if it gets too long, we

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Richard Heck wrote: > If you really want to do this, I could do it with Perl in a few minutes. > I'd just need to know exactly what the new syntax was supposed to be, > and how it was derived from the old syntax. Thanks. Anyway, this is certainly 2.2 stuff. Jürgen

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 2013-08-20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: 20/08/2013 12:32, Guenter Milde: While there is always one unique code point per Unicode character, there are many characters with multiple LICR LaTeX macros. This means that for tex2lyx, we should rather use an additional ressource for the LICR

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 2013-08-20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > 20/08/2013 12:32, Guenter Milde: >> While there is always one unique code point per Unicode character, there are >> many characters with multiple LICR LaTeX macros. >> This means that for tex2lyx, we should rather use an additional ressource >> for the

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

20/08/2013 01:03, Guenter Milde: I cannot say when. Have a look inside t1enc.def, there you see definitions like \DeclareTextComposite{\`}{T1}{\i}{236} \DeclareTextComposite{\'}{T1}{i}{237} ... It looks like this happened in May 2001, and nobody told me... I'm shocked. One less LaTeX

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: It looks like this happened in May 2001, and nobody told me... I'm shocked. And one day you will wake up into the world when 'k' will be no more. And no one will tell you because there will be no way how to point at it :) Pavel

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 2013-08-20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: 20/08/2013 01:03, Guenter Milde: I cannot say when. Have a look inside t1enc.def, there you see definitions like \DeclareTextComposite{\`}{T1}{\i}{236} \DeclareTextComposite{\'}{T1}{i}{237} ... It looks like this happened in May 2001, and nobody

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

20/08/2013 12:32, Guenter Milde: While there is always one unique code point per Unicode character, there are many characters with multiple LICR LaTeX macros. This means that for tex2lyx, we should rather use an additional ressource for the LICR alias - Unicode mappings. We could either extend

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

20/08/2013 01:03, Guenter Milde: I cannot say when. Have a look inside t1enc.def, there you see definitions like \DeclareTextComposite{\`}{T1}{\i}{236} \DeclareTextComposite{\'}{T1}{i}{237} ... It looks like this happened in May 2001, and nobody told me... I'm shocked. One less LaTeX

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > It looks like this happened in May 2001, and nobody told me... I'm shocked. And one day you will wake up into the world when 'k' will be no more. And no one will tell you because there will be no way how to point at it :) Pavel

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 2013-08-20, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > 20/08/2013 01:03, Guenter Milde: >> I cannot say when. Have a look inside t1enc.def, there you see definitions >> like >> \DeclareTextComposite{\`}{T1}{\i}{236} >> \DeclareTextComposite{\'}{T1}{i}{237} >> ... > It looks like this happened in May 2001,

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

20/08/2013 12:32, Guenter Milde: While there is always one unique code point per Unicode character, there are many characters with multiple LICR LaTeX macros. This means that for tex2lyx, we should rather use an additional ressource for the LICR alias -> Unicode mappings. We could either extend

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 2013-07-27, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Yes. JMarc Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org a écrit : Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Un general one does not put accents on i, but on dotless i. I see, so when writer2latex converts í into \'i it should be reported as a bug? Actually, LaTeX converts both

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

19/08/2013 15:16, Guenter Milde: Actually, LaTeX converts both variants to í: \documentclass{minimal} \usepackage{lmodern} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \begin{document} \'i vs. \'\i \end{document} Even with OT1, the PDF looks right but drag and drop fails. When did this happen? I know for

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 2013-08-19, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: 19/08/2013 15:16, Guenter Milde: Actually, LaTeX converts both variants to í: \documentclass{minimal} \usepackage{lmodern} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \begin{document} \'i vs. \'\i \end{document} Even with OT1, the PDF looks right but drag and

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 2013-07-27, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Yes. > JMarc > Pavel Sanda a écrit : >>Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >>> Un general one does not put accents on i, but on dotless i. >>I see, so when writer2latex converts í into \'i it should be reported >>as a bug? Actually, LaTeX

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

19/08/2013 15:16, Guenter Milde: Actually, LaTeX converts both variants to í: \documentclass{minimal} \usepackage{lmodern} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \begin{document} \'i vs. \'\i \end{document} Even with OT1, the PDF looks right but drag and drop fails. When did this happen? I know for

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

On 2013-08-19, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > 19/08/2013 15:16, Guenter Milde: >> Actually, LaTeX converts both variants to í: >> \documentclass{minimal} >> \usepackage{lmodern} >> \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} >> \begin{document} >> \'i vs. \'\i >> \end{document} >> Even with OT1, the PDF looks

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: I suppose tex2lyx should read \dots as \ldots in texted (they are equivalent outside amsmath). In unicodesymbols, the use of \ldots (instead of \dots) seems correct to me, though. Attached two alternative patches that address this.

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Pavel Sanda wrote: *\footnote{} is converted into footneote inset but '*' remains plainly in the text. Could you post an example for this? I do not understand. Jürgen

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > I suppose tex2lyx should read \dots as > > \ldots in texted (they are equivalent outside amsmath). In unicodesymbols, > > the use of \ldots (instead of \dots) seems correct to me, though. > > Attached two alternative patches that address

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Pavel Sanda wrote: > *\footnote{} is converted > into footneote inset but '*' remains plainly in the text. Could you post an example for this? I do not understand. Jürgen

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: I suppose tex2lyx should read \dots as \ldots in texted (they are equivalent outside amsmath). In unicodesymbols, the use of \ldots (instead of \dots) seems correct to me, though. Attached two alternative patches that address this. Tex2lyx people, which style do

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > I suppose tex2lyx should read \dots as > \ldots in texted (they are equivalent outside amsmath). In unicodesymbols, > the use of \ldots (instead of \dots) seems correct to me, though. Attached two alternative patches that address this. Tex2lyx people, which style do

unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Unicode experts, I just failed to correctly import .tex file into lyx, more precisely while \'a gets correctly translated into á, \'i is not translated and you see only ERT with the \'i. Looking into unicodesymbols file the difference seems to be clear: 0x00e1 \\'{a}mathalpha

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Un general one does not put accents on i, but on dotless i. JMarc Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org a écrit : Unicode experts, I just failed to correctly import .tex file into lyx, more precisely while \'a gets correctly translated into á, \'i is not translated and you see only ERT with the \'i.

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Pavel Sanda wrote: Apart from that tex2lyx seems not to translate \dots (again ERT) This problem is only in texted, right? I suppose tex2lyx should read \dots as \ldots in texted (they are equivalent outside amsmath). In unicodesymbols, the use of \ldots (instead of \dots) seems correct to me,

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Un general one does not put accents on i, but on dotless i. I see, so when writer2latex converts í into \'i it should be reported as a bug? Pavel

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: Apart from that tex2lyx seems not to translate \dots (again ERT) This problem is only in texted, right? Yep. Pavel

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Yes. JMarc Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org a écrit : Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Un general one does not put accents on i, but on dotless i. I see, so when writer2latex converts í into \'i it should be reported as a bug? Pavel

unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Unicode experts, I just failed to correctly import .tex file into lyx, more precisely while \'a gets correctly translated into á, \'i is not translated and you see only ERT with the \'i. Looking into unicodesymbols file the difference seems to be clear: 0x00e1 "\\'{a}" ""

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Un general one does not put accents on i, but on dotless i. JMarc Pavel Sanda a écrit : >Unicode experts, > >I just failed to correctly import .tex file into lyx, more precisely >while \'a gets correctly translated into á, \'i is not translated >and you see only ERT with the

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Pavel Sanda wrote: > Apart from that tex2lyx seems not to translate \dots (again ERT) This problem is only in texted, right? I suppose tex2lyx should read \dots as \ldots in texted (they are equivalent outside amsmath). In unicodesymbols, the use of \ldots (instead of \dots) seems correct to

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Un general one does not put accents on i, but on dotless i. I see, so when writer2latex converts í into \'i it should be reported as a bug? Pavel

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > Apart from that tex2lyx seems not to translate \dots (again ERT) > > This problem is only in texted, right? Yep. Pavel

Re: unicodesymbols and tex2lyx

Yes. JMarc Pavel Sanda a écrit : >Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> Un general one does not put accents on i, but on dotless i. > >I see, so when writer2latex converts í into \'i it should be reported >as a bug? > >Pavel