LyX-to-LaTeX roundtrips (was: Re: why people give up on open source software)

[Liviu Andronic]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Scott Kostyshak skost...@lyx.org wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Hal Kierstead
 hal.kierst...@icloud.com wrote:
 On Oct 26, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote:
 LOL, how can you expect fast advances when the LyX pretty much became
 perfect in 2004? I mean, really, name me one serious thing it's
 missing. At this point we're down to more efficient hotkeys and a more
 complete outline mode.

 I[t] should at least be able to convert tex files produced by LyX back into 
 the original version of LyX, even if it takes some ugly hacks like adding 
 extra data to insure the conversion.

 I can see where you're coming from but I personally don't agree with
 this. I never think ugly hacks are the answer. And even if this were
 done, maybe things would work better if your coauthors did not change
 any single LaTeX command and only changed the text, but the moment
 they change one thing (even adding a simple \textbf), this can be a
 huge deal to the parser and not even ugly hacks will save us there.

 In my opinion the best thing to do is to improve tex2lyx little by
 little. If you find a bug, see if it's reported (look for component
 tex2lyx) and if not please report it.

I certainly agree that we should not resort to hacks, and that LyX
cannot understand all possible LaTeX constructs. But I do think that a
major missing feature in LyX as of today is the lack of perfectly
executed LyX-to-LaTeX roundtrips. It seems to me that this is
something that LyX could potentially do flawlessly, but doesn't yet do
so.

If this were to work reliably, people could draft a document in LyX,
export to LaTeX, send the .tex file to co-authors who would make
changes to the document (but without messing with the Preamble!), then
receive back the modified .tex file and import it effortlessly into
LyX. That would be very nice indeed.

Regards,
Liviu

LyX-to-LaTeX roundtrips (was: Re: why people give up on open source software)

[Liviu Andronic]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Scott Kostyshak skost...@lyx.org wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Hal Kierstead
 hal.kierst...@icloud.com wrote:
 On Oct 26, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote:
 LOL, how can you expect fast advances when the LyX pretty much became
 perfect in 2004? I mean, really, name me one serious thing it's
 missing. At this point we're down to more efficient hotkeys and a more
 complete outline mode.

 I[t] should at least be able to convert tex files produced by LyX back into 
 the original version of LyX, even if it takes some ugly hacks like adding 
 extra data to insure the conversion.

 I can see where you're coming from but I personally don't agree with
 this. I never think ugly hacks are the answer. And even if this were
 done, maybe things would work better if your coauthors did not change
 any single LaTeX command and only changed the text, but the moment
 they change one thing (even adding a simple \textbf), this can be a
 huge deal to the parser and not even ugly hacks will save us there.

 In my opinion the best thing to do is to improve tex2lyx little by
 little. If you find a bug, see if it's reported (look for component
 tex2lyx) and if not please report it.

I certainly agree that we should not resort to hacks, and that LyX
cannot understand all possible LaTeX constructs. But I do think that a
major missing feature in LyX as of today is the lack of perfectly
executed LyX-to-LaTeX roundtrips. It seems to me that this is
something that LyX could potentially do flawlessly, but doesn't yet do
so.

If this were to work reliably, people could draft a document in LyX,
export to LaTeX, send the .tex file to co-authors who would make
changes to the document (but without messing with the Preamble!), then
receive back the modified .tex file and import it effortlessly into
LyX. That would be very nice indeed.

Regards,
Liviu

LyX-to-LaTeX roundtrips (was: Re: why people give up on open source software)

[Liviu Andronic]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Hal Kierstead
>  wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Steve Litt  wrote:
>> LOL, how can you expect fast advances when the LyX pretty much became
>>> perfect in 2004? I mean, really, name me one serious thing it's
>>> missing. At this point we're down to more efficient hotkeys and a more
>>> complete outline mode.
>>>
>> I[t] should at least be able to convert tex files produced by LyX back into 
>> the original version of LyX, even if it takes some ugly hacks like adding 
>> extra data to insure the conversion.
>
> I can see where you're coming from but I personally don't agree with
> this. I never think ugly hacks are the answer. And even if this were
> done, maybe things would work better if your coauthors did not change
> any single LaTeX command and only changed the text, but the moment
> they change one thing (even adding a simple \textbf), this can be a
> huge deal to the parser and not even ugly hacks will save us there.
>
> In my opinion the best thing to do is to improve tex2lyx little by
> little. If you find a bug, see if it's reported (look for component
> tex2lyx) and if not please report it.
>
I certainly agree that we should not resort to hacks, and that LyX
cannot understand all possible LaTeX constructs. But I do think that a
major missing feature in LyX as of today is the lack of perfectly
executed LyX-to-LaTeX roundtrips. It seems to me that this is
something that LyX could potentially do flawlessly, but doesn't yet do
so.

If this were to work reliably, people could draft a document in LyX,
export to LaTeX, send the .tex file to co-authors who would make
changes to the document (but without messing with the Preamble!), then
receive back the modified .tex file and import it effortlessly into
LyX. That would be very nice indeed.

Regards,
Liviu