On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:59:12AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>>> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Or decide that \protect should disappear in constructs like \protect\[
> and \protect\], since LyX should add them back. Can reLyX do it, or is
> it out of reach?
Um... I *think* it should be able to do that. Text::TeX can look ahead one
token, so you could have CleanTeX say that if lookAheadToken is
$,$$,\(,\[,\),\] then you should not print \protect. Since \protect takes no
arguments it won't confuse Text::TeX either. (Whereas the $foo$$bar$ bug
mentioned earlier *will* confuse it because the parser wants a $$ to match
the first, even if we tell CleanTeX to ignore it.)
You know, I thought the bug that wasn't a_b_c was translating a_\sqrt{b},
but it turns out reLyX can handle that just fine. So I wonder what the bug
was?! For now, I'm going to take that bug out of BUGS.
-Amir
