Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Richard Heck a écrit : Paul A. Rubin wrote: Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? There's some stuff in the Customization guide, but how accurate it is I think the information in Customization.lyx is up to date. Please report any problem. JMarc
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
I for one would be glad to tackle writing some layouts, but the hang up for me is what Paul points out here - that the syntax and rules aren't laid out in simple form anywhere. I realize it takes trial and error, but a few hours with the User's Guide (Customization) and some other layouts as examples left me frustrated and unwilling to continue. Would it be hard to generate a short piece about layout syntax, with some examples, to go along with the new module format in the new version? I think it would be immensely useful. And, if you could do that, we might convert some journals/editors to write their own layouts and let us submit LyX-generated LaTeX PDFs instead of ugly Word documents (I've had to write in Word for two papers nearing submission b/c of resistance from publishers [I'm in a field not on to the LaTeX thing; sad, i know.]). Richard Heck wrote: Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support. Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? /Paul Dave
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Dave Hewitt wrote:
I for one would be glad to tackle writing some layouts, but the hang up
for me is what Paul points out here - that the syntax and rules aren't
laid out in simple form anywhere. I realize it takes trial and error, but
a few hours with the User's Guide (Customization) and some other layouts
as examples left me frustrated and unwilling to continue.
Are you creating a layout from scratch or adapting a latex class to LyX.
Creating a custom layout in LaTeX is not easy but adapting a LaTeX class is
rather easy. Just open one of the .inc file and copypaste and change the
labels and LaTeX commands you want LyX to spit, then refine the way it
should look on screen.
Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of
supporting) documented anywhere?
Today, LyX is capable of creating environments \begin{blabla}
\end{blabla} and commands \blabla{}. The big shortcoming is parameters
\blabla[4}{} but Richard Heck is working on that.
Cheers,
Charles
--
http://www.kde-france.org
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Richard Heck a écrit : Paul A. Rubin wrote: Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? There's some stuff in the Customization guide, but how accurate it is I think the information in Customization.lyx is up to date. Please report any problem. The entry for LabelType in section 5.3.4 does not cover the Itemize and Enumerate types. Also, there seems to be no entry for InnerTag, ItemTag and LabelTag, which occur in db_stdlists.inc (ItemTag also occurs in agu_stdlists.inc). Cheers, Paul
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Richard Heck a écrit : Paul A. Rubin wrote: Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? There's some stuff in the Customization guide, but how accurate it is I think the information in Customization.lyx is up to date. Please report any problem. JMarc
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
I for one would be glad to tackle writing some layouts, but the hang up for me is what Paul points out here - that the syntax and rules aren't laid out in simple form anywhere. I realize it takes trial and error, but a few hours with the User's Guide (Customization) and some other layouts as examples left me frustrated and unwilling to continue. Would it be hard to generate a short piece about layout syntax, with some examples, to go along with the new module format in the new version? I think it would be immensely useful. And, if you could do that, we might convert some journals/editors to write their own layouts and let us submit LyX-generated LaTeX PDFs instead of ugly Word documents (I've had to write in Word for two papers nearing submission b/c of resistance from publishers [I'm in a field not on to the LaTeX thing; sad, i know.]). Richard Heck wrote: Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support. Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? /Paul Dave
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Dave Hewitt wrote:
I for one would be glad to tackle writing some layouts, but the hang up
for me is what Paul points out here - that the syntax and rules aren't
laid out in simple form anywhere. I realize it takes trial and error, but
a few hours with the User's Guide (Customization) and some other layouts
as examples left me frustrated and unwilling to continue.
Are you creating a layout from scratch or adapting a latex class to LyX.
Creating a custom layout in LaTeX is not easy but adapting a LaTeX class is
rather easy. Just open one of the .inc file and copypaste and change the
labels and LaTeX commands you want LyX to spit, then refine the way it
should look on screen.
Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of
supporting) documented anywhere?
Today, LyX is capable of creating environments \begin{blabla}
\end{blabla} and commands \blabla{}. The big shortcoming is parameters
\blabla[4}{} but Richard Heck is working on that.
Cheers,
Charles
--
http://www.kde-france.org
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Richard Heck a écrit : Paul A. Rubin wrote: Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? There's some stuff in the Customization guide, but how accurate it is I think the information in Customization.lyx is up to date. Please report any problem. The entry for LabelType in section 5.3.4 does not cover the Itemize and Enumerate types. Also, there seems to be no entry for InnerTag, ItemTag and LabelTag, which occur in db_stdlists.inc (ItemTag also occurs in agu_stdlists.inc). Cheers, Paul
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Richard Heck a écrit : Paul A. Rubin wrote: Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? There's some stuff in the Customization guide, but how accurate it is I think the information in Customization.lyx is up to date. Please report any problem. JMarc
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
I for one would be glad to tackle writing some layouts, but the hang up for me is what Paul points out here - that the syntax and rules aren't laid out in simple form anywhere. I realize it takes trial and error, but a few hours with the User's Guide (Customization) and some other layouts as examples left me frustrated and unwilling to continue. Would it be hard to generate a short piece about layout syntax, with some examples, to go along with the new module format in the new version? I think it would be immensely useful. And, if you could do that, we might convert some journals/editors to write their own layouts and let us submit LyX-generated LaTeX PDFs instead of ugly Word documents (I've had to write in Word for two papers nearing submission b/c of resistance from publishers [I'm in a field not on to the LaTeX thing; sad, i know.]). Richard Heck wrote: Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support. Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? /Paul Dave
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Dave Hewitt wrote:
> I for one would be glad to tackle writing some layouts, but the hang up
> for me is what Paul points out here - that the syntax and rules aren't
> laid out in simple form anywhere. I realize it takes trial and error, but
> a few hours with the User's Guide (Customization) and some other layouts
> as examples left me frustrated and unwilling to continue.
>
Are you creating a layout from scratch or adapting a latex class to LyX.
Creating a custom layout in LaTeX is not easy but adapting a LaTeX class is
rather easy. Just open one of the .inc file and copy and change the
labels and LaTeX commands you want LyX to spit, then refine the way it
should look on screen.
>
> Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of
> supporting) documented anywhere?
Today, LyX is capable of creating environments \begin{blabla}
\end{blabla} and commands \blabla{}. The big shortcoming is parameters
\blabla[4}{} but Richard Heck is working on that.
Cheers,
Charles
--
http://www.kde-france.org
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Richard Heck a écrit : Paul A. Rubin wrote: Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? There's some stuff in the Customization guide, but how accurate it is I think the information in Customization.lyx is up to date. Please report any problem. The entry for LabelType in section 5.3.4 does not cover the Itemize and Enumerate types. Also, there seems to be no entry for InnerTag, ItemTag and LabelTag, which occur in db_stdlists.inc (ItemTag also occurs in agu_stdlists.inc). Cheers, Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
David L. Johnson wrote:
In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within
sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance,
if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13).
The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own
counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is
followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2).
I am trying to remember why I did that. I do remember that that was a
special case for some reason. I have been trying to read through the
documentation of the amslatex package to find that, but I have changed
computers since then, and don't seem to have the documentation of this.
But you are right, it is an oddball thing.
But cases is an oddball thing. You use this in the midst of a proof.
Case 1, case 2, etc. You know, like:
Case 1; x0
blah
Case 2; x 0
blah, blah
Case 3: x=0
Trivial.
So having cases have the same numbering as theorem environments is
wrong. It would be better to reset the numbering automatically after
each proof environment. What I do in practice is to reset the numbering
when needed -- although I don't recall how I did that now. Maybe a
simple \setcounter{cases}{0} would work...??
This makes sense. I wondered why Case was being treated as a
theorem-ish environment. Given this, I assume that there would be no
point in having a Case* environment. For resetting the counter, how
about this: two case environments, 'Case (first)' which resets the
counter and 'Case (next)' which doesn't?
There was a glitch in recent versions of lyx that did not reset the
secondary number from section to section, so if you had 4 theorems in
section 1, the first theorem in section 2 would appear on-screen as
theorem (2.5). It did not print that way, though. Someone sent me
layout files that fixed that (maybe you?), but in any event those
changes should be incorporated.
I fixed that for someone, and I might have posted the changes on the
list (v. sending them directly). I definitely did post the changes to
the wiki. IIRC, that one was just a matter of reordering the includes.
At any rate, that's in the next wave.
And, lest I forget, thanks for doing the original hack!
Cheers,
Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Paul A. Rubin wrote: This makes sense. I wondered why Case was being treated as a theorem-ish environment. Given this, I assume that there would be no point in having a Case* environment. For resetting the counter, how about this: two case environments, 'Case (first)' which resets the counter and 'Case (next)' which doesn't? That sounds good to me. I fixed that for someone, and I might have posted the changes on the list (v. sending them directly). I definitely did post the changes to the wiki. IIRC, that one was just a matter of reordering the includes. At any rate, that's in the next wave. Good. And, lest I forget, thanks for doing the original hack! And thanks to you (and many others) for making it actually work. -- David L. Johnson The motor car reflects our standard of living and gauges the speed of our present life. It long ago ran down Simple Living, and never halted to inquire about the prostrate figure which fell as its victim. -- Warren G. Harding
use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Hello, On 9/22/07, Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Users can load whatever modules they want. Do I understand correctly that in 1.6 it will be possible to use virtually any latex class with minimal fuss concerning the layout? I, for example, have found a good few letter and cv classes on CTAN, but never yet managed to try them because of the necessity to customize the layout file. Regards, Liviu
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Liviu Andronic wrote:
Hello,
On 9/22/07, Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Users can load whatever modules they want.
Do I understand correctly that in 1.6 it will be possible to use
virtually any latex class with minimal fuss concerning the layout? I,
for example, have found a good few letter and cv classes on CTAN, but
never yet managed to try them because of the necessity to customize
the layout file.
No, it's not that good. The change just makes layouts more modular than
they used to be.
Layout editing takes some getting used to, but it's really not that
hard, once you get the feel. And it will be a little easier in 1.6,
since you'll be able to reload layouts on the fly rather than having to
restart LyX.
With letter classes, it might be pretty trivial. Most of them define the
same things; they just lay them out differently. So then the only thing
you'd need to do is change the first line, e.g., from
# \DeclareLaTeXClass{letter}
to:
# \DeclareLaTeXClass{newletter}
if newletter.cls is your new class. If the letter does define some new
environment you want to use, then you just add that.
Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout
editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and
I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support.
Richard
Regards,
Liviu
--
==
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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? Thanks SteveT Steve Litt Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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? Not really. Latex, and amslatex, offers many options --- too many to be usable within LyX. Making reasonable choices will make the environments usable by most people, and anyone with specific requirements outside of those choices can always use some ERT or preamble settings to get there. -- David L. Johnson It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster. --Greg LeMond
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Richard Heck wrote: Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support. Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? /Paul
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Richard Heck wrote: Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support. Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? There's some stuff in the Customization guide, but how accurate it is Of course, there's always the source. ;-) rh /Paul -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
David L. Johnson wrote:
In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within
sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance,
if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13).
The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own
counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is
followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2).
I am trying to remember why I did that. I do remember that that was a
special case for some reason. I have been trying to read through the
documentation of the amslatex package to find that, but I have changed
computers since then, and don't seem to have the documentation of this.
But you are right, it is an oddball thing.
But cases is an oddball thing. You use this in the midst of a proof.
Case 1, case 2, etc. You know, like:
Case 1; x0
blah
Case 2; x 0
blah, blah
Case 3: x=0
Trivial.
So having cases have the same numbering as theorem environments is
wrong. It would be better to reset the numbering automatically after
each proof environment. What I do in practice is to reset the numbering
when needed -- although I don't recall how I did that now. Maybe a
simple \setcounter{cases}{0} would work...??
This makes sense. I wondered why Case was being treated as a
theorem-ish environment. Given this, I assume that there would be no
point in having a Case* environment. For resetting the counter, how
about this: two case environments, 'Case (first)' which resets the
counter and 'Case (next)' which doesn't?
There was a glitch in recent versions of lyx that did not reset the
secondary number from section to section, so if you had 4 theorems in
section 1, the first theorem in section 2 would appear on-screen as
theorem (2.5). It did not print that way, though. Someone sent me
layout files that fixed that (maybe you?), but in any event those
changes should be incorporated.
I fixed that for someone, and I might have posted the changes on the
list (v. sending them directly). I definitely did post the changes to
the wiki. IIRC, that one was just a matter of reordering the includes.
At any rate, that's in the next wave.
And, lest I forget, thanks for doing the original hack!
Cheers,
Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Paul A. Rubin wrote: This makes sense. I wondered why Case was being treated as a theorem-ish environment. Given this, I assume that there would be no point in having a Case* environment. For resetting the counter, how about this: two case environments, 'Case (first)' which resets the counter and 'Case (next)' which doesn't? That sounds good to me. I fixed that for someone, and I might have posted the changes on the list (v. sending them directly). I definitely did post the changes to the wiki. IIRC, that one was just a matter of reordering the includes. At any rate, that's in the next wave. Good. And, lest I forget, thanks for doing the original hack! And thanks to you (and many others) for making it actually work. -- David L. Johnson The motor car reflects our standard of living and gauges the speed of our present life. It long ago ran down Simple Living, and never halted to inquire about the prostrate figure which fell as its victim. -- Warren G. Harding
use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Hello, On 9/22/07, Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Users can load whatever modules they want. Do I understand correctly that in 1.6 it will be possible to use virtually any latex class with minimal fuss concerning the layout? I, for example, have found a good few letter and cv classes on CTAN, but never yet managed to try them because of the necessity to customize the layout file. Regards, Liviu
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Liviu Andronic wrote:
Hello,
On 9/22/07, Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Users can load whatever modules they want.
Do I understand correctly that in 1.6 it will be possible to use
virtually any latex class with minimal fuss concerning the layout? I,
for example, have found a good few letter and cv classes on CTAN, but
never yet managed to try them because of the necessity to customize
the layout file.
No, it's not that good. The change just makes layouts more modular than
they used to be.
Layout editing takes some getting used to, but it's really not that
hard, once you get the feel. And it will be a little easier in 1.6,
since you'll be able to reload layouts on the fly rather than having to
restart LyX.
With letter classes, it might be pretty trivial. Most of them define the
same things; they just lay them out differently. So then the only thing
you'd need to do is change the first line, e.g., from
# \DeclareLaTeXClass{letter}
to:
# \DeclareLaTeXClass{newletter}
if newletter.cls is your new class. If the letter does define some new
environment you want to use, then you just add that.
Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout
editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and
I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support.
Richard
Regards,
Liviu
--
==
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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? Thanks SteveT Steve Litt Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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? Not really. Latex, and amslatex, offers many options --- too many to be usable within LyX. Making reasonable choices will make the environments usable by most people, and anyone with specific requirements outside of those choices can always use some ERT or preamble settings to get there. -- David L. Johnson It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster. --Greg LeMond
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Richard Heck wrote: Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support. Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? /Paul
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Richard Heck wrote: Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support. Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? There's some stuff in the Customization guide, but how accurate it is Of course, there's always the source. ;-) rh /Paul -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
David L. Johnson wrote:
In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within
sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance,
if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13).
The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own
counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is
followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2).
I am trying to remember why I did that. I do remember that that was a
"special case" for some reason. I have been trying to read through the
documentation of the amslatex package to find that, but I have changed
computers since then, and don't seem to have the documentation of this.
But you are right, it is an oddball thing.
But cases is an oddball thing. You use this in the midst of a proof.
Case 1, case 2, etc. You know, like:
Case 1; x>0
blah
Case 2; x< 0
blah, blah
Case 3: x=0
Trivial.
So having cases have the same numbering as theorem environments is
wrong. It would be better to reset the numbering automatically after
each proof environment. What I do in practice is to reset the numbering
when needed -- although I don't recall how I did that now. Maybe a
simple \setcounter{cases}{0} would work...??
This makes sense. I wondered why Case was being treated as a
theorem-ish environment. Given this, I assume that there would be no
point in having a Case* environment. For resetting the counter, how
about this: two case environments, 'Case (first)' which resets the
counter and 'Case (next)' which doesn't?
There was a glitch in recent versions of lyx that did not reset the
secondary number from section to section, so if you had 4 theorems in
section 1, the first theorem in section 2 would appear on-screen as
theorem (2.5). It did not print that way, though. Someone sent me
layout files that fixed that (maybe you?), but in any event those
changes should be incorporated.
I fixed that for someone, and I might have posted the changes on the
list (v. sending them directly). I definitely did post the changes to
the wiki. IIRC, that one was just a matter of reordering the includes.
At any rate, that's in the next wave.
And, lest I forget, thanks for doing the original hack!
Cheers,
Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Paul A. Rubin wrote: This makes sense. I wondered why Case was being treated as a theorem-ish environment. Given this, I assume that there would be no point in having a Case* environment. For resetting the counter, how about this: two case environments, 'Case (first)' which resets the counter and 'Case (next)' which doesn't? That sounds good to me. I fixed that for someone, and I might have posted the changes on the list (v. sending them directly). I definitely did post the changes to the wiki. IIRC, that one was just a matter of reordering the includes. At any rate, that's in the next wave. Good. And, lest I forget, thanks for doing the original hack! And thanks to you (and many others) for making it actually work. -- David L. Johnson The motor car reflects our standard of living and gauges the speed of our present life. It long ago ran down Simple Living, and never halted to inquire about the prostrate figure which fell as its victim. -- Warren G. Harding
use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Hello, On 9/22/07, Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Users can load whatever modules they want. Do I understand correctly that in 1.6 it will be possible to use virtually any latex class with minimal fuss concerning the layout? I, for example, have found a good few letter and cv classes on CTAN, but never yet managed to try them because of the necessity to customize the layout file. Regards, Liviu
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Liviu Andronic wrote:
Hello,
On 9/22/07, Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Users can load whatever modules they want.
Do I understand correctly that in 1.6 it will be possible to use
virtually any latex class with minimal fuss concerning the layout? I,
for example, have found a good few letter and cv classes on CTAN, but
never yet managed to try them because of the necessity to customize
the layout file.
No, it's not that good. The change just makes layouts more modular than
they used to be.
Layout editing takes some getting used to, but it's really not that
hard, once you get the feel. And it will be a little easier in 1.6,
since you'll be able to reload layouts on the fly rather than having to
restart LyX.
With letter classes, it might be pretty trivial. Most of them define the
same things; they just lay them out differently. So then the only thing
you'd need to do is change the first line, e.g., from
# \DeclareLaTeXClass{letter}
to:
# \DeclareLaTeXClass{newletter}
if newletter.cls is your new class. If the letter does define some new
environment you want to use, then you just add that.
Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout
editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and
I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support.
Richard
Regards,
Liviu
--
==
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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? Thanks SteveT Steve Litt Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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? Not really. Latex, and amslatex, offers many options --- too many to be usable within LyX. Making reasonable choices will make the environments usable by most people, and anyone with specific requirements outside of those choices can always use some ERT or preamble settings to get there. -- David L. Johnson It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster. --Greg LeMond
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Richard Heck wrote: Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support. Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? /Paul
Re: use of various latex classes in 1.6 [was AMS users: vote your preferences!]
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Richard Heck wrote: Of course, what we could really use is some sort of UI for layout editing. I've thought about writing that, but my time is limited, and I've got other things on my plate, like BibLaTeX support. Is the syntax of layout files (and what they are/are not capable of supporting) documented anywhere? There's some stuff in the Customization guide, but how accurate it is Of course, there's always the source. ;-) rh /Paul -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
AMS users: vote your preferences!
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. The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain: Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion; Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise; Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that last one). In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance, if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2). I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the fold. Please let me know through the list and/or by direct e-mail if you have strong preferences to the contrary. Also, this is your chance to argue for different numbering of other environments (or different labeling, different text style, whatever -- within reason). Cheers, Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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. On a slightly different note, at least in 1.6, it will be possible to simplify some of this. Dang near everything you could ever want has to be defined in the layout file because there's presently no easy way to pull anything else in. In 1.6, on the other hand, we'll have (we do have, in svn) what I call layout modules that allow you to customize your layout by pulling in optional stuff. (There's stuff in DocumentSettings that allows you to do this.) So, if it seemed wise, some of the less crucial stuff could be pulled out into a module, and then people who needed it could include it, so that by default the drop box would be less crowded. Of course, for 1.5, this isn't an issue. Richard The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain: Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion; Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise; Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that last one). In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance, if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2). I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the fold. Please let me know through the list and/or by direct e-mail if you have strong preferences to the contrary. Also, this is your chance to argue for different numbering of other environments (or different labeling, different text style, whatever -- within reason). Cheers, Paul -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Richard Heck wrote: On a slightly different note, at least in 1.6, it will be possible to simplify some of this. Dang near everything you could ever want has to be defined in the layout file because there's presently no easy way to pull anything else in. In 1.6, on the other hand, we'll have (we do have, in svn) what I call layout modules that allow you to customize your layout by pulling in optional stuff. (There's stuff in DocumentSettings that allows you to do this.) So, if it seemed wise, some of the less crucial stuff could be pulled out into a module, and then people who needed it could include it, so that by default the drop box would be less crowded. Of course, for 1.5, this isn't an issue. Will the users be able to perform this customization from DocSettings and save the modified layouts, or will they have to edit the layouts themselves? (Or will some luckless soul have to revisit what I'm doing now?) If it's one size fits all, deciding what goes into each module will be NP-hard. /Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
I know this is far from the subject of the vote, but any chance to implement the subequations environment into the layout? Or this is something that needs a deeper programing? On Friday 21 September 2007 16:17, 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. The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain: Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion; Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise; Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that last one). In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance, if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2). I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the fold. Please let me know through the list and/or by direct e-mail if you have strong preferences to the contrary. Also, this is your chance to argue for different numbering of other environments (or different labeling, different text style, whatever -- within reason). Cheers, Paul -- Rudi Gaelzer Department of Physics Institute of Physics and Mathematics Federal University of Pelotas BRAZIL Registered Linux User # 153741
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Richard Heck wrote: On a slightly different note, at least in 1.6, it will be possible to simplify some of this. Dang near everything you could ever want has to be defined in the layout file because there's presently no easy way to pull anything else in. In 1.6, on the other hand, we'll have (we do have, in svn) what I call layout modules that allow you to customize your layout by pulling in optional stuff. (There's stuff in DocumentSettings that allows you to do this.) So, if it seemed wise, some of the less crucial stuff could be pulled out into a module, and then people who needed it could include it, so that by default the drop box would be less crowded. Of course, for 1.5, this isn't an issue. Will the users be able to perform this customization from DocSettings and save the modified layouts, or will they have to edit the layouts themselves? (Or will some luckless soul have to revisit what I'm doing now?) If it's one size fits all, deciding what goes into each module will be NP-hard. Users can load whatever modules they want. So you could, e.g., have a stripped-down version that loaded theorem, lemma, etc, but left case, example, etc, to a module. Loading modules is easy, so it's not a problem for anyone to get the extra stuff. The modules themselves are just layout files. Here's an example of why this is cool. Suppose you're using article.cls, but you want theorem environments. What do you have to do now? Edit article.layout and probably save it as article-with-theorems.layout, and then if you change your mind and want to use scrartcl.cls, you have to edit scrartcl.layout, etc, etc. In 1.6, you load one of the Theorems modules, and if you change your mind, it stays loaded. Or again: Suppose you have some charstyles you like, so you save them in charstyles.inc and include that in article.layout. Now you want to write a book, so you have to edit book.layout, and if you change your mind about the document class, you have no option but mass murder. In 1.6, you save your charstyles to charstyles.module (and reconfigure!), then load the module and live peacefully for the rest of your life. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Rudi Gaelzer wrote: I know this is far from the subject of the vote, but any chance to implement the subequations environment into the layout? Or this is something that needs a deeper programing? My guess is that it would require modifying the source code that handles math insets -- but an actual developer could give a definitive answer. /Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Rudi Gaelzer wrote: I know this is far from the subject of the vote, but any chance to implement the subequations environment into the layout? Or this is something that needs a deeper programing? My guess is that it would require modifying the source code that handles math insets -- but an actual developer could give a definitive answer. There might already be an enhancement request about this. But yes, I'm pretty sure this is deep code. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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.
The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain:
Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion;
Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise;
Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me
why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that
last one).
I don't think I am to blame for Summary, maybe Jean-Marc. He modified
thexse enviromnents a lot from my original hack.
In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within
sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance,
if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The
oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own
counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed
by the second case overall, it's Case 2).
I am trying to remember why I did that. I do remember that that was a
special case for some reason. I have been trying to read through the
documentation of the amslatex package to find that, but I have changed
computers since then, and don't seem to have the documentation of this.
But you are right, it is an oddball thing.
But cases is an oddball thing. You use this in the midst of a proof.
Case 1, case 2, etc. You know, like:
Case 1; x0
blah
Case 2; x 0
blah, blah
Case 3: x=0
Trivial.
So having cases have the same numbering as theorem environments is
wrong. It would be better to reset the numbering automatically after
each proof environment. What I do in practice is to reset the numbering
when needed -- although I don't recall how I did that now. Maybe a
simple \setcounter{cases}{0} would work...??
I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything
else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the
fold.
I really don't think that is right. Cases isn't really a theorem
environment, although it is treated like one in latex.
There was a glitch in recent versions of lyx that did not reset the
secondary number from section to section, so if you had 4 theorems in
section 1, the first theorem in section 2 would appear on-screen as
theorem (2.5). It did not print that way, though. Someone sent me
layout files that fixed that (maybe you?), but in any event those
changes should be incorporated.
--
David L. Johnson
Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
AMS users: vote your preferences!
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. The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain: Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion; Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise; Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that last one). In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance, if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2). I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the fold. Please let me know through the list and/or by direct e-mail if you have strong preferences to the contrary. Also, this is your chance to argue for different numbering of other environments (or different labeling, different text style, whatever -- within reason). Cheers, Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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. On a slightly different note, at least in 1.6, it will be possible to simplify some of this. Dang near everything you could ever want has to be defined in the layout file because there's presently no easy way to pull anything else in. In 1.6, on the other hand, we'll have (we do have, in svn) what I call layout modules that allow you to customize your layout by pulling in optional stuff. (There's stuff in DocumentSettings that allows you to do this.) So, if it seemed wise, some of the less crucial stuff could be pulled out into a module, and then people who needed it could include it, so that by default the drop box would be less crowded. Of course, for 1.5, this isn't an issue. Richard The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain: Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion; Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise; Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that last one). In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance, if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2). I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the fold. Please let me know through the list and/or by direct e-mail if you have strong preferences to the contrary. Also, this is your chance to argue for different numbering of other environments (or different labeling, different text style, whatever -- within reason). Cheers, Paul -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Richard Heck wrote: On a slightly different note, at least in 1.6, it will be possible to simplify some of this. Dang near everything you could ever want has to be defined in the layout file because there's presently no easy way to pull anything else in. In 1.6, on the other hand, we'll have (we do have, in svn) what I call layout modules that allow you to customize your layout by pulling in optional stuff. (There's stuff in DocumentSettings that allows you to do this.) So, if it seemed wise, some of the less crucial stuff could be pulled out into a module, and then people who needed it could include it, so that by default the drop box would be less crowded. Of course, for 1.5, this isn't an issue. Will the users be able to perform this customization from DocSettings and save the modified layouts, or will they have to edit the layouts themselves? (Or will some luckless soul have to revisit what I'm doing now?) If it's one size fits all, deciding what goes into each module will be NP-hard. /Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
I know this is far from the subject of the vote, but any chance to implement the subequations environment into the layout? Or this is something that needs a deeper programing? On Friday 21 September 2007 16:17, 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. The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain: Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion; Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise; Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that last one). In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance, if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2). I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the fold. Please let me know through the list and/or by direct e-mail if you have strong preferences to the contrary. Also, this is your chance to argue for different numbering of other environments (or different labeling, different text style, whatever -- within reason). Cheers, Paul -- Rudi Gaelzer Department of Physics Institute of Physics and Mathematics Federal University of Pelotas BRAZIL Registered Linux User # 153741
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Richard Heck wrote: On a slightly different note, at least in 1.6, it will be possible to simplify some of this. Dang near everything you could ever want has to be defined in the layout file because there's presently no easy way to pull anything else in. In 1.6, on the other hand, we'll have (we do have, in svn) what I call layout modules that allow you to customize your layout by pulling in optional stuff. (There's stuff in DocumentSettings that allows you to do this.) So, if it seemed wise, some of the less crucial stuff could be pulled out into a module, and then people who needed it could include it, so that by default the drop box would be less crowded. Of course, for 1.5, this isn't an issue. Will the users be able to perform this customization from DocSettings and save the modified layouts, or will they have to edit the layouts themselves? (Or will some luckless soul have to revisit what I'm doing now?) If it's one size fits all, deciding what goes into each module will be NP-hard. Users can load whatever modules they want. So you could, e.g., have a stripped-down version that loaded theorem, lemma, etc, but left case, example, etc, to a module. Loading modules is easy, so it's not a problem for anyone to get the extra stuff. The modules themselves are just layout files. Here's an example of why this is cool. Suppose you're using article.cls, but you want theorem environments. What do you have to do now? Edit article.layout and probably save it as article-with-theorems.layout, and then if you change your mind and want to use scrartcl.cls, you have to edit scrartcl.layout, etc, etc. In 1.6, you load one of the Theorems modules, and if you change your mind, it stays loaded. Or again: Suppose you have some charstyles you like, so you save them in charstyles.inc and include that in article.layout. Now you want to write a book, so you have to edit book.layout, and if you change your mind about the document class, you have no option but mass murder. In 1.6, you save your charstyles to charstyles.module (and reconfigure!), then load the module and live peacefully for the rest of your life. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Rudi Gaelzer wrote: I know this is far from the subject of the vote, but any chance to implement the subequations environment into the layout? Or this is something that needs a deeper programing? My guess is that it would require modifying the source code that handles math insets -- but an actual developer could give a definitive answer. /Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Rudi Gaelzer wrote: I know this is far from the subject of the vote, but any chance to implement the subequations environment into the layout? Or this is something that needs a deeper programing? My guess is that it would require modifying the source code that handles math insets -- but an actual developer could give a definitive answer. There might already be an enhancement request about this. But yes, I'm pretty sure this is deep code. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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.
The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain:
Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion;
Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise;
Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me
why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that
last one).
I don't think I am to blame for Summary, maybe Jean-Marc. He modified
thexse enviromnents a lot from my original hack.
In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within
sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance,
if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The
oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own
counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed
by the second case overall, it's Case 2).
I am trying to remember why I did that. I do remember that that was a
special case for some reason. I have been trying to read through the
documentation of the amslatex package to find that, but I have changed
computers since then, and don't seem to have the documentation of this.
But you are right, it is an oddball thing.
But cases is an oddball thing. You use this in the midst of a proof.
Case 1, case 2, etc. You know, like:
Case 1; x0
blah
Case 2; x 0
blah, blah
Case 3: x=0
Trivial.
So having cases have the same numbering as theorem environments is
wrong. It would be better to reset the numbering automatically after
each proof environment. What I do in practice is to reset the numbering
when needed -- although I don't recall how I did that now. Maybe a
simple \setcounter{cases}{0} would work...??
I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything
else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the
fold.
I really don't think that is right. Cases isn't really a theorem
environment, although it is treated like one in latex.
There was a glitch in recent versions of lyx that did not reset the
secondary number from section to section, so if you had 4 theorems in
section 1, the first theorem in section 2 would appear on-screen as
theorem (2.5). It did not print that way, though. Someone sent me
layout files that fixed that (maybe you?), but in any event those
changes should be incorporated.
--
David L. Johnson
Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
AMS users: vote your preferences!
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. The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain: Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion; Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise; Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that last one). In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance, if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2). I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the fold. Please let me know through the list and/or by direct e-mail if you have strong preferences to the contrary. Also, this is your chance to argue for different numbering of other environments (or different labeling, different text style, whatever -- within reason). Cheers, Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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. On a slightly different note, at least in 1.6, it will be possible to simplify some of this. Dang near everything you could ever want has to be defined in the layout file because there's presently no easy way to pull anything else in. In 1.6, on the other hand, we'll have (we do have, in svn) what I call layout "modules" that allow you to customize your layout by pulling in optional stuff. (There's stuff in Document>Settings that allows you to do this.) So, if it seemed wise, some of the less crucial stuff could be pulled out into a module, and then people who needed it could include it, so that by default the drop box would be less crowded. Of course, for 1.5, this isn't an issue. Richard The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain: Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion; Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise; Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that last one). In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance, if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed by the second case overall, it's Case 2). I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the fold. Please let me know through the list and/or by direct e-mail if you have strong preferences to the contrary. Also, this is your chance to argue for different numbering of other environments (or different labeling, different text style, whatever -- within reason). Cheers, Paul -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Richard Heck wrote: On a slightly different note, at least in 1.6, it will be possible to simplify some of this. Dang near everything you could ever want has to be defined in the layout file because there's presently no easy way to pull anything else in. In 1.6, on the other hand, we'll have (we do have, in svn) what I call layout "modules" that allow you to customize your layout by pulling in optional stuff. (There's stuff in Document>Settings that allows you to do this.) So, if it seemed wise, some of the less crucial stuff could be pulled out into a module, and then people who needed it could include it, so that by default the drop box would be less crowded. Of course, for 1.5, this isn't an issue. Will the users be able to perform this customization from Doc>Settings and save the modified layouts, or will they have to edit the layouts themselves? (Or will some luckless soul have to revisit what I'm doing now?) If it's one size fits all, deciding what goes into each module will be NP-hard. /Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
I know this is far from the subject of the vote, but any chance to implement the subequations environment into the layout? Or this is something that needs a deeper programing? On Friday 21 September 2007 16:17, 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. > > The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain: > > Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion; > Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise; > Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me > why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that > last one). > > In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within > sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance, > if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The > oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own > counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed > by the second case overall, it's Case 2). > > I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything > else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the > fold. Please let me know through the list and/or by direct e-mail if > you have strong preferences to the contrary. Also, this is your chance > to argue for different numbering of other environments (or different > labeling, different text style, whatever -- within reason). > > Cheers, > Paul -- Rudi Gaelzer Department of Physics Institute of Physics and Mathematics Federal University of Pelotas BRAZIL Registered Linux User # 153741
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Richard Heck wrote: On a slightly different note, at least in 1.6, it will be possible to simplify some of this. Dang near everything you could ever want has to be defined in the layout file because there's presently no easy way to pull anything else in. In 1.6, on the other hand, we'll have (we do have, in svn) what I call layout "modules" that allow you to customize your layout by pulling in optional stuff. (There's stuff in Document>Settings that allows you to do this.) So, if it seemed wise, some of the less crucial stuff could be pulled out into a module, and then people who needed it could include it, so that by default the drop box would be less crowded. Of course, for 1.5, this isn't an issue. Will the users be able to perform this customization from Doc>Settings and save the modified layouts, or will they have to edit the layouts themselves? (Or will some luckless soul have to revisit what I'm doing now?) If it's one size fits all, deciding what goes into each module will be NP-hard. Users can load whatever modules they want. So you could, e.g., have a stripped-down version that loaded theorem, lemma, etc, but left case, example, etc, to a module. Loading modules is easy, so it's not a problem for anyone to get the extra stuff. The modules themselves are just layout files. Here's an example of why this is cool. Suppose you're using article.cls, but you want theorem environments. What do you have to do now? Edit article.layout and probably save it as article-with-theorems.layout, and then if you change your mind and want to use scrartcl.cls, you have to edit scrartcl.layout, etc, etc. In 1.6, you load one of the Theorems modules, and if you change your mind, it stays loaded. Or again: Suppose you have some charstyles you like, so you save them in charstyles.inc and include that in article.layout. Now you want to write a book, so you have to edit book.layout, and if you change your mind about the document class, you have no option but mass murder. In 1.6, you save your charstyles to charstyles.module (and reconfigure!), then load the module and live peacefully for the rest of your life. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Rudi Gaelzer wrote: I know this is far from the subject of the vote, but any chance to implement the subequations environment into the layout? Or this is something that needs a deeper programing? My guess is that it would require modifying the source code that handles math insets -- but an actual developer could give a definitive answer. /Paul
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Rudi Gaelzer wrote: I know this is far from the subject of the vote, but any chance to implement the subequations environment into the layout? Or this is something that needs a deeper programing? My guess is that it would require modifying the source code that handles math insets -- but an actual developer could give a definitive answer. There might already be an enhancement request about this. But yes, I'm pretty sure this is deep code. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: AMS users: vote your preferences!
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.
The following numbered environments exist in all but amsart-plain:
Theorem; Corollary; Lemma; Proposition; Conjecture; Criterion;
Algorithm; Axiom; Definition; Example; Condition; Problem; Exercise;
Remark; Note; Notation; Claim; Summary (yes it's numbered, don't ask me
why); Acknowledgement; Case; Conclusion; Fact; Assumption (I added that
last one).
I don't think I am to blame for Summary, maybe Jean-Marc. He modified
thexse enviromnents a lot from my original hack.
In the standard AMS layout, all these but one are numbered within
sections, consecutively using a single counter (so that, for instance,
if a lemma appears in section 3 after theorem 12, it's Lemma 3.13). The
oddball is Case, which is not numbered by section, and has its own
counter separate from the other items (so that if Lemma 3.13 is followed
by the second case overall, it's Case 2).
I am trying to remember why I did that. I do remember that that was a
"special case" for some reason. I have been trying to read through the
documentation of the amslatex package to find that, but I have changed
computers since then, and don't seem to have the documentation of this.
But you are right, it is an oddball thing.
But cases is an oddball thing. You use this in the midst of a proof.
Case 1, case 2, etc. You know, like:
Case 1; x>0
blah
Case 2; x< 0
blah, blah
Case 3: x=0
Trivial.
So having cases have the same numbering as theorem environments is
wrong. It would be better to reset the numbering automatically after
each proof environment. What I do in practice is to reset the numbering
when needed -- although I don't recall how I did that now. Maybe a
simple \setcounter{cases}{0} would work...??
I don't know why Case should be treated differently from everything
else, so in the absence of votes to the contrary I'll merge it into the
fold.
I really don't think that is right. Cases isn't really a theorem
environment, although it is treated like one in latex.
There was a glitch in recent versions of lyx that did not reset the
secondary number from section to section, so if you had 4 theorems in
section 1, the first theorem in section 2 would appear on-screen as
theorem (2.5). It did not print that way, though. Someone sent me
layout files that fixed that (maybe you?), but in any event those
changes should be incorporated.
--
David L. Johnson
Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
