On 2017-04-18, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 18.04.2017, 10:26 +0200 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
>> > Why?
>> The fact is the you rely on an undocumented behavior of LyX to
>> obtain what you want :)
> I wouldn't count it undocumented.
It is an undocumented internal. At least some developers don't bother about
the actual LaTeX written, so the difference between specialchar and literal
char went unnoticed until now.
> It is obvious that the special char
> inset outputs \ldots, so I need to redefine that macro. Would the
> special char output \dots, I would have re-defined that.
What would you have done, if both, the literal character and the
specialchar had output \dots?
> In any case, we should not replace one macro by the other behind the
> back of users, just because they are equivalent by default (outside
> math, that is).
They are equivalent in text on purpose.
>> I read a bit about \ldots, \dots and friends (in the LaTeX
>> companion), and it seems now that the situation is not very simple.
>> It looks to me like a case where the SpecialChar inset should output
>> different things depending on the language.
> I don't think so. Rather than that, we could consider to support the
> ellipsis (or xellipsis) package, or csquotes, or a combination of
> those.
The ellipsis package ignores \ldots (in both, implementation and
documentation). I am not sure whether this is intedend or just an oversight.
We can support the ellipsis package by using \textellipsis or \dots as
LICR for the ellipsis character. \usepackage{ellipsis} in the user
preamble should also solve your problem with […].
>> What is a good reference on the subject?
> The ellipsis manual, for a start:
> http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/ellipsis/ellipsis.pdf
I studied this and appended a test document to the ticket.
http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10543
Günter
