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). Jürgen > > Scott >
