Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:33:32 +0200
Dov Feldstern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This thread is about a separate problem, which is due to Martin's change
in r21121. I have described above what the problem is, and provided a
sample file with both the incorrect output, and correct output (after
reverting the change).
This problem still exists as of latest trunk (r21127) --- it's a totally
separate issue from Abdel's changes.
Dov
Thanks Dov... attached a patch that produces the proper LaTeX code for
your test file (though I cannot compile it, not having Hebrew fonts
installed). Please test it with this and other docs.
Martin, this (together with the encoding, as done in r21153) fixes the
problems I was having, thanks!
However, I'm still not sure this is really what we want to be doing:
should verbatim really mean that we want the contents to be output to
*LaTeX* verbatim? Or should it mean that we want the contents to be
output in a \verbatim (or \verbatim-like) environment, to allow multiple
spaces or special characters, for example? These are two different
things, and I think that what we really want as a generalized
environment is the latter behavior, not the former. r21153 goes a little
more in the direction of the former. However, is there any other place
besides CERT where that kind of verbatim is really needed?
I see that it's used in the URL custom inset. However, there are some
problems with this inset, I find: for example, you can't type two
consecutive spaces in this inset (in true verbatim I think you should be
able to, in ERT you are); secondly, try to mark some of the text of the
url as emph (using plain ctrl-e, not a charstyle), or insert a footnote
within the url (or change the language, which is how I discovered this
problem in the first place). Is the result what the user expects? I
don't think so. And it's certainly not what he sees on the screen... One
possible solution might be to disable most LFUNs inside a "verbatim"
inset, similarly to how it's done in ERT --- but how do you know exactly
which LFUNs to disable? For example, in the Listings inset (which has
many of its own problems), we *do* want to allow the insertion of a
caption, but not other kinds of insets. Maybe "verbatim" is just not the
kind of thing which should be happening at the layout level, but rather
in the actual code...? Maybe there should be a InsetVerbatim class which
gives the basic verbatim behavior, and then insets can override it at will.
But anyhow, IMO both r21153 and r21121 should be reverted. I think it's
best that we leave ERT out of this, at least for now. I don't really see
what we gain by making it use the "verbatim" layout --- the code being
replaced in r21121 is well encapsulated, I don't think that making it
use a more general mechanism gives us anything. And besides, ERT is a
very special case, and I think that involving it in something more
generalized is just asking for trouble...
Beyond that, it seems like the "verbatim" layout itself --- or its use
in custom insets --- requires more thought and/or work. Perhaps
collecting a few examples of where it would be useful (URL, Listings,
...) can help figuring out how it should work...
I _hope_ the encoding problem was the only one remaining... can you say
'spaghetti'?
It wasn't so bad in the end, was it? ;)
Dov
- Martin
