Re: Problem with spellchecker
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where that does not happen. Any ideas? IMHO, it should check ERT, as there might be visible text inside an ERT (example: psfrag replacement text). However, LyX should start ispell in TeX mode, so the ispell-internal skipping of (La)-TeX commands takes place. I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious, as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally, through aspell (for example) from the command line. Paul
Re: line breaks in citation references
Rainer Worbis wrote:
im using lyx 1.3.3 for my work without a bibtex database. Sometimes
citation references will grow out of the margin of the paper.
How can I avoid this?
If you don't use natbib:
\usepackage{cite}
Jürgen.
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Paul == Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious, Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally, Paul through aspell (for example) from the command line. Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain words at all). JMarc
Headings in a Box
Dear list,
I have use headings in my document and it is realized with the following
LATEX-preambel (page-style is fancy):
\lhead{text...}
\rhead{}
\chead{}
\lfoot{text}
It looks quite fine but my professor wants it in a box and with grey or
blue background.
All trials with
\fbox etc.
only produced errors.
Could someone be so kind mailing me a better preambel.
Thanks
Gerhard
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Alain == Alain DIDIERJEAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alain On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes Alain wrote: Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain words at all). Alain Are sure ? Suppose you were french. How would write oeuvre, Alain noeud, naevus, curriculum vitae... correctly not using ERT ? It turns out that ae is in latin1, so this is not a real problem. As far as oe is concerned this is definitely a deficiency in LyX (we should either support \oe as accent or decide that latin9 is the default encoding for french). However, existing LyX bugs are not a reason to add bad functionality :) There are many typical ERT constructs that would trigger the spellchecker, and the annoyance would outweigh the benefits. And it turns out that I am french, but this is not really a surprise ;) JMarc
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious, Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally, Paul through aspell (for example) from the command line. Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain words at all). Jean-Marc, Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However, sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text. For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary (up to my best knowledge) to use an ERT. Therefore, I would like to submit to the consideration of LyX team the suggestion of adding a combo (that the user could tick or not) in order to be possible (to each user) the choice between spell-checking ERTs and not spell-checking ERTs. In case my suggestion is too difficult of implementing, please ignore it. Regards, Paul
Re: Problem with spellchecker
On Apr 22, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally,
Paul through aspell (for example) from the command line.
Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to
contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain
words at all).
Jean-Marc,
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package
enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary
(up to my best knowledge) to use an ERT. Therefore, I would like to
submit to the consideration of LyX team the suggestion of adding a
combo (that the user could tick or not) in order to be possible (to
each user) the choice between spell-checking ERTs and not
spell-checking ERTs. In case my suggestion is too difficult of
implementing, please ignore it.
Regards,
Paul
Paul -
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box \emph{ followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
}. In this way, only the LaTeX bits need to be in ERT, and the text
can be out of it. Wouldn't that satisfy your need for spellchecking?
Bennett
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package
enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary
(up to my best knowledge) to use an ERT. Therefore, I would like to
submit to the consideration of LyX team the suggestion of adding a
combo (that the user could tick or not) in order to be possible (to
each user) the choice between spell-checking ERTs and not
spell-checking ERTs. In case my suggestion is too difficult of
implementing, please ignore it.
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box \emph{ followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
}. In this way, only the LaTeX bits need to be in ERT, and the text
can be out of it. Wouldn't that satisfy your need for spellchecking?
Thanks, Bennett! Unfortunately, LyX does need
\begin{enumerate}{{A}1.}
\item First item;
\item Second item.
\end{enumerate}
inside the same ERT.
Paul
Re: Problem with spellchecker
On Thursday 22 April 2004 17:11, Bennett Helm wrote: It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions. This is not just useful for spellchecking: it makes the text within the ERT visible as normal text in the Lyx window. I found you could do this by trial and error -- is it documented anywhere? Les -- L. R. Denham Gentoo Linux 1.4 KDE 3.1.4 Athlon XP 3200+ 1 GB Dual Channel PC2700 RAM Maxtor 120 GB (System partitions EXT3, Data ReiserFS) Sony CRX300E CD-RW/DVD-ROM Gainward GeForce4 64MB MX440 EPox 8RDA3+ Motherboard
Re: Problem with spellchecker
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box \emph{ followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
}. In this way, only the LaTeX bits need to be in ERT, and the text
can be out of it. Wouldn't that satisfy your need for spellchecking?
Thanks, Bennett! Unfortunately, LyX does need
\begin{enumerate}{{A}1.}
\item First item;
\item Second item.
\end{enumerate}
inside the same ERT.
Bennett,
I apologize. I had made a syntax error: I should have written [{A}1.]
instead of {{A}1.}. (Wrong brackets!; I am using the enumerate package.)
Your solution to my problem is really clever! Many thanks!
Paul
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where that does not happen. Any ideas? IMHO, it should check ERT, as there might be visible text inside an ERT (example: psfrag replacement text). However, LyX should start ispell in TeX mode, so the ispell-internal skipping of (La)-TeX commands takes place. I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious, as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally, through aspell (for example) from the command line. Paul
Re: line breaks in citation references
Rainer Worbis wrote:
im using lyx 1.3.3 for my work without a bibtex database. Sometimes
citation references will grow out of the margin of the paper.
How can I avoid this?
If you don't use natbib:
\usepackage{cite}
Jürgen.
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Paul == Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious, Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally, Paul through aspell (for example) from the command line. Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain words at all). JMarc
Headings in a Box
Dear list,
I have use headings in my document and it is realized with the following
LATEX-preambel (page-style is fancy):
\lhead{text...}
\rhead{}
\chead{}
\lfoot{text}
It looks quite fine but my professor wants it in a box and with grey or
blue background.
All trials with
\fbox etc.
only produced errors.
Could someone be so kind mailing me a better preambel.
Thanks
Gerhard
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Alain == Alain DIDIERJEAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alain On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes Alain wrote: Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain words at all). Alain Are sure ? Suppose you were french. How would write oeuvre, Alain noeud, naevus, curriculum vitae... correctly not using ERT ? It turns out that ae is in latin1, so this is not a real problem. As far as oe is concerned this is definitely a deficiency in LyX (we should either support \oe as accent or decide that latin9 is the default encoding for french). However, existing LyX bugs are not a reason to add bad functionality :) There are many typical ERT constructs that would trigger the spellchecker, and the annoyance would outweigh the benefits. And it turns out that I am french, but this is not really a surprise ;) JMarc
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious, Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally, Paul through aspell (for example) from the command line. Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain words at all). Jean-Marc, Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However, sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text. For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary (up to my best knowledge) to use an ERT. Therefore, I would like to submit to the consideration of LyX team the suggestion of adding a combo (that the user could tick or not) in order to be possible (to each user) the choice between spell-checking ERTs and not spell-checking ERTs. In case my suggestion is too difficult of implementing, please ignore it. Regards, Paul
Re: Problem with spellchecker
On Apr 22, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally,
Paul through aspell (for example) from the command line.
Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to
contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain
words at all).
Jean-Marc,
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package
enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary
(up to my best knowledge) to use an ERT. Therefore, I would like to
submit to the consideration of LyX team the suggestion of adding a
combo (that the user could tick or not) in order to be possible (to
each user) the choice between spell-checking ERTs and not
spell-checking ERTs. In case my suggestion is too difficult of
implementing, please ignore it.
Regards,
Paul
Paul -
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box \emph{ followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
}. In this way, only the LaTeX bits need to be in ERT, and the text
can be out of it. Wouldn't that satisfy your need for spellchecking?
Bennett
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package
enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary
(up to my best knowledge) to use an ERT. Therefore, I would like to
submit to the consideration of LyX team the suggestion of adding a
combo (that the user could tick or not) in order to be possible (to
each user) the choice between spell-checking ERTs and not
spell-checking ERTs. In case my suggestion is too difficult of
implementing, please ignore it.
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box \emph{ followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
}. In this way, only the LaTeX bits need to be in ERT, and the text
can be out of it. Wouldn't that satisfy your need for spellchecking?
Thanks, Bennett! Unfortunately, LyX does need
\begin{enumerate}{{A}1.}
\item First item;
\item Second item.
\end{enumerate}
inside the same ERT.
Paul
Re: Problem with spellchecker
On Thursday 22 April 2004 17:11, Bennett Helm wrote: It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions. This is not just useful for spellchecking: it makes the text within the ERT visible as normal text in the Lyx window. I found you could do this by trial and error -- is it documented anywhere? Les -- L. R. Denham Gentoo Linux 1.4 KDE 3.1.4 Athlon XP 3200+ 1 GB Dual Channel PC2700 RAM Maxtor 120 GB (System partitions EXT3, Data ReiserFS) Sony CRX300E CD-RW/DVD-ROM Gainward GeForce4 64MB MX440 EPox 8RDA3+ Motherboard
Re: Problem with spellchecker
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box \emph{ followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
}. In this way, only the LaTeX bits need to be in ERT, and the text
can be out of it. Wouldn't that satisfy your need for spellchecking?
Thanks, Bennett! Unfortunately, LyX does need
\begin{enumerate}{{A}1.}
\item First item;
\item Second item.
\end{enumerate}
inside the same ERT.
Bennett,
I apologize. I had made a syntax error: I should have written [{A}1.]
instead of {{A}1.}. (Wrong brackets!; I am using the enumerate package.)
Your solution to my problem is really clever! Many thanks!
Paul
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where that does not happen. Any ideas? IMHO, it should check ERT, as there might be visible text inside an ERT (example: psfrag replacement text). However, LyX should start ispell in TeX mode, so the ispell-internal skipping of (La)-TeX commands takes place. I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious, as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally, through aspell (for example) from the command line. Paul
Re: line breaks in citation references
Rainer Worbis wrote:
> im using lyx 1.3.3 for my work without a bibtex database. Sometimes
> citation references will grow out of the margin of the paper.
> How can I avoid this?
If you don't use natbib:
\usepackage{cite}
Jürgen.
Re: Problem with spellchecker
> "Paul" == Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Paul> I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in Paul> the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is Paul> surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious, Paul> as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally, Paul> through aspell (for example) from the command line. Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain words at all). JMarc
Headings in a Box
Dear list,
I have use headings in my document and it is realized with the following
LATEX-preambel (page-style is fancy):
\lhead{text...}
\rhead{}
\chead{}
\lfoot{text}
It looks quite fine but my professor wants it in a box and with grey or
blue background.
All trials with
\fbox etc.
only produced errors.
Could someone be so kind mailing me a better preambel.
Thanks
Gerhard
Re: Problem with spellchecker
> "Alain" == Alain DIDIERJEAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Alain> On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes Alain> wrote: >> Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed >> to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to >> contain words at all). >> Alain> Are sure ? Suppose you were french. How would write oeuvre, Alain> noeud, naevus, curriculum vitae... correctly not using ERT ? It turns out that ae is in latin1, so this is not a real problem. As far as oe is concerned this is definitely a deficiency in LyX (we should either support \oe as accent or decide that latin9 is the default encoding for french). However, existing LyX bugs are not a reason to add bad functionality :) There are many typical ERT constructs that would trigger the spellchecker, and the annoyance would outweigh the benefits. And it turns out that I am french, but this is not really a surprise ;) JMarc
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Paul> I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in Paul> the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is Paul> surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious, Paul> as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally, Paul> through aspell (for example) from the command line. Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain words at all). Jean-Marc, Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However, sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text. For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary (up to my best knowledge) to use an ERT. Therefore, I would like to submit to the consideration of LyX team the suggestion of adding a combo (that the user could tick or not) in order to be possible (to each user) the choice between spell-checking ERTs and not spell-checking ERTs. In case my suggestion is too difficult of implementing, please ignore it. Regards, Paul
Re: Problem with spellchecker
On Apr 22, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Paul> I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul> the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul> surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul> as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally,
Paul> through aspell (for example) from the command line.
Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to
contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain
words at all).
Jean-Marc,
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package
enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary
(up to my best knowledge) to use an ERT. Therefore, I would like to
submit to the consideration of LyX team the suggestion of adding a
combo (that the user could tick or not) in order to be possible (to
each user) the choice between spell-checking ERTs and not
spell-checking ERTs. In case my suggestion is too difficult of
implementing, please ignore it.
Regards,
Paul
Paul -
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box "\emph{" followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
"}". In this way, only the LaTeX bits need to be in ERT, and the text
can be out of it. Wouldn't that satisfy your need for spellchecking?
Bennett
Re: Problem with spellchecker
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package
enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary
(up to my best knowledge) to use an ERT. Therefore, I would like to
submit to the consideration of LyX team the suggestion of adding a
combo (that the user could tick or not) in order to be possible (to
each user) the choice between spell-checking ERTs and not
spell-checking ERTs. In case my suggestion is too difficult of
implementing, please ignore it.
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box "\emph{" followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
"}". In this way, only the LaTeX bits need to be in ERT, and the text
can be out of it. Wouldn't that satisfy your need for spellchecking?
Thanks, Bennett! Unfortunately, LyX does need
\begin{enumerate}{{A}1.}
\item First item;
\item Second item.
\end{enumerate}
inside the same ERT.
Paul
Re: Problem with spellchecker
On Thursday 22 April 2004 17:11, Bennett Helm wrote: > It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't > have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions. This is not just useful for spellchecking: it makes the text within the ERT visible as normal text in the Lyx window. I found you could do this by trial and error -- is it documented anywhere? Les -- L. R. Denham Gentoo Linux 1.4 KDE 3.1.4 Athlon XP 3200+ 1 GB Dual Channel PC2700 RAM Maxtor 120 GB (System partitions EXT3, Data ReiserFS) Sony CRX300E CD-RW/DVD-ROM Gainward GeForce4 64MB MX440 EPox 8RDA3+ Motherboard
Re: Problem with spellchecker
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box "\emph{" followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
"}". In this way, only the LaTeX bits need to be in ERT, and the text
can be out of it. Wouldn't that satisfy your need for spellchecking?
Thanks, Bennett! Unfortunately, LyX does need
\begin{enumerate}{{A}1.}
\item First item;
\item Second item.
\end{enumerate}
inside the same ERT.
Bennett,
I apologize. I had made a syntax error: I should have written [{A}1.]
instead of {{A}1.}. (Wrong brackets!; I am using the enumerate package.)
Your solution to my problem is really clever! Many thanks!
Paul
