On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Richard Heck <[email protected]> wrote: > I suppose, and really long-term maybe that'd be even better. My dream---I > seem to have a lot of these---is for Flex insets that take arguments. So you > click on the button and you get a dialog, where you can enter additional > arguments. > This would be a shared dream, then. :) A variation, to be precise.
The current solutions (the Schunk environment and the use of Sweave code in ERT insets) are awkward or require unnecessary and prone-to-error typing. I'd much like to come up with a native LyX inset for the Sweave code chunks, a design I've once described here [1]. In short, it would be similar to ERT boxes (1), wrap the contents of the inset within the "<<>>=" and "@" character and would accept arguments that would be inserted between "<<" and ">>=" from above. At the time Jürgen was saying that something might be on the cards in the future. Does 2.0 bring anything new on this front? Or is it a long way off? Thank you Liviu [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg81464.html > Now the whole InsetCommand vs InsetCollapsable distinction starts > to vanish. An InsetCommand is just an InsetCollapsable with nothing but > arguments, and the sort of thing we're discussing is just a special case of > that. > > For now, though, given how the code is actually organized, it just seems > wrong that this sort of thing would be an InsetText, and at the moment the > whole InsetLayout business is pretty tied to text insets, if I remember > right. > > Richard > > -- Do you know how to read? http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader Do you know how to write? http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail
