On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 09:44:47AM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 24-Jul-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> >| 4) Lars does not like adding the Latex layout back in because there
> >| would be two different ways of adding Latex.
>
> I'm still of the opinion that this is a "artifical" excuse.
Me too.
> >| * Add the Latex layout back in via the PassThru flag in a small file
> >| (lib/layouts/latex-layout.inc).
>
> I'm really in PRO to do such a thing, but only with the ERT inset!
> We SHOULD also think on our power-users (as you called them) and not
> only on "stupid" users who use it as is without the knowledge what's
> behind (no offens of stupid is was just an other word for "not knowing")
I think having the Latex Layout in addition to the ERT inset is actually
the best of both worlds.
The "preferred" method can become the ERT inset (which IS looking better
and better!!! Thanks, everyone!) but there is no reason to chop off
the LaTeX layout since now it can be done without too many "hacks,
hacks, hacks".
So, I modify what I proposed before:
1) Leave the ERT inset code and improve it.
2) Leave the bindings as they are (ERT inset added when TeX
button is pressed, etc.)
3) Add the LaTeX layout back in.
4) Remove the conversion code that takes a LaTeX layout paragraph and
transforms it into an ERT inset. A user who really wants an ERT inset
instead of a LaTeX paragraph should be able to copy and paste the
paragraph into an ERT inset.
---Kayvan
--
Kayvan A. Sylvan | Proud husband of | Father to my kids:
Sylvan Associates, Inc. | Laura Isabella Sylvan | Katherine Yelena (8/8/89)
http://sylvan.com/~kayvan | "crown of her husband" | Robin Gregory (2/28/92)
