On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 03:52:38PM +0000, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> 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).

I see. Thanks for the explanation. OK I will test whether they are
needed with the example I gave or with the knitr example file. If it is
not needed for both, I will remove it for that type of box. Let me know
if there is any other test case that you think would be good to check.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to