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. Scott
Description: PGP signature