Re: 666 inset vs. Latex Layout
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)
Re: 666 inset vs. Latex Layout
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. >| * 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") Jürgen -- -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen VignaE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel/Fax: +39-0471-450260 / +39-0471-450253 I-39100 Bozen Web: http://www.sad.it/~jug -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Pardo's First Postulate: Anything good in life is either illegal, immoral, or fattening. Arnold's Addendum: Everything else causes cancer in rats.
Re: 666 inset vs. Latex Layout
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:58:49PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | * Add the Latex layout back in via the PassThru flag in a small file > | (lib/layouts/latex-layout.inc). > | > | * Remove the ERT inset and all the backwards compatibility loading and > | writing stuff. > | > | This further cleans up the code, completely preserves backwards compatibility, > | gets rid of the entire problems with the inset rendering, and makes all the > | power users (like Herbert and others) happy. > | > | You could also then do similar things with the DocBook stuff using > | the PassThru flag. > > and you get the latex font style back... not good. Hmmm... What was so bad about the Latex font style? It was an easy way to have in-lined LaTeX code. -- 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)
