2018-04-16 17:43 GMT+02:00 Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org>:

> I don't mind doing it, but do you agree that it should be done?

If we are certain about it.

> I have no knowledge of \cprotect, so I don't know if e.g. in the case of
> double frame, although it is not needed for the example file I provided,
> perhaps it is needed for another situation? I also have no idea if there
> is any disadvantage to using \cprotect when it is not needed. Perhaps
> you are suggesting that there is no disadvantage so it is not worth the
> 30 minutes to remove (and test) it?

I also can only say that per trial and error. For instance, it is not
documented in the framed manual that verbatim content is supported, I got
that information from some stackexchange post.
Likewise, I have no idea why parbox cannot be cprotected.

In general, I think that it does not harm doing a \cprotect where it is not
necessary (we have to do that in some cases); but on the other hand, if we
are sure that something works without, there is no need to do it.

So what I wanted to say is that you can go ahead and remove the respective
"cprotect" strings before the specific box calls if your testing reveals
they are not needed. I don't have any more expertise than you here. I would
need to sit down and test as well (and if you want to d it instead, I would
be actually rather grateful).


> Scott

Reply via email to