Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 21 September 2007 15:17, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Hi all,
I'm revising the amsart, amsart-plain, amsart-seq and amsbook layouts,
and there are a few oddities that need to be reconciled. Mostly I'm
making choices capriciously :-), but this is something I thought I would
put to a vote.
Aren't these things LaTeX rather than LyX? Should we change it, or should the
people who maintain LaTeX environments?
I poked around a little in the AMS class files, thinking that there
would be a laundry list of what theorem-like environments are/are not
supported, and how they should look. My original motivation was that
(a) I wanted a numbered list of assumptions, (b) the layout file didn't
have it and (c) I wasn't sure if the LaTeX classes provided it.
As best I can tell, the class files just provide a mechanism for rolling
your own environment (\newtheorem and \newtheorem*) and leave it up to
the user to decide whether they want, say, a numbered list of
Unsupported Conjectures formatted a certain way. So the layout files
essentially provide you a handy (?) predefined list of theorem-ish
environments, leaving you free to add things like Unsupported Conjecture
by adding LaTeX code to the preamble.
I'm still more than a bit fuzzy about why all the environments provided
by the current layout files are there, but on the off chance that each
one has at least one user, and with an eye toward backward
compatibility, I'm keeping them all. Per Richard Heck's post, when LyX
1.6 comes out, hopefully someone will reexamine this and modularize the
list, so that those of use with simple tastes can just use the basic
tier of environments and declutter the drop down list a bit. (Of
course, pride of parenting being what it is, I'll have to load whichever
module contains the Assumption environment.)
/Paul
