math-macro and inline editing
Hi! I want to make heavy use of math-macros to create type inference rules using proof.sty. I defined some macros using the \frac construct in the right box of the math-macro definition as preview, with several arguments #1, #2, ... In the left box I use the corresponding commands from proof.sty. Everything looks great until I try to edit the arguments of the macro: LyX jumps into a third representation with several line prefixed with #1, #2 to enter the arguments. Is it supposed to work like that? Especially if you nest math-macros in your formulas this style of editing makes it unusable because you easily completely loose track of the structure of your formula. Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Although I don't know LyX's rendering code, it doesn't look to be much more complicated. But maybe I am wrong. Regards Stefan
Re: math-macro and inline editing
Stefan == Stefan Schimanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stefan Everything looks great until I try to edit the arguments Stefan of the macro: LyX jumps into a third representation with Stefan several line prefixed with #1, #2 to enter the arguments. Is Stefan it supposed to work like that? Especially if you nest Stefan math-macros in your formulas this style of editing makes it Stefan unusable because you easily completely loose track of the Stefan structure of your formula. Stefan Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with Stefan some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Although I don't know Stefan LyX's rendering code, it doesn't look to be much more Stefan complicated. But maybe I am wrong. It used to do that, but this was changed in 1.3.x (I think). One particular problem (which could be avoided) was to know what to do when for example #1 is used twice. I also think this should be reverted. But we have to find somebody who wants to actually do it :) JMarc
Re: math-macro and inline editing
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:24:23AM +, Stefan Schimanski wrote: Everything looks great until I try to edit the arguments of the macro: LyX jumps into a third representation with several line prefixed with #1, #2 to enter the arguments. Is it supposed to work like that? Sort of, yes. So far no better idea has been proposed/implemented. Especially if you nest math-macros in your formulas this style of editing makes it unusable because you easily completely loose track of the structure of your formula. Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Navigation between the arguments is non-obvious. Macro arguments can be used more than once. Although I don't know LyX's rendering code, it doesn't look to be much more complicated. But maybe I am wrong. Just try to implement something better. If it works out, we should use that. Andre'
Re: math-macro and inline editing
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:54:06PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: It used to do that, but this was changed in 1.3.x (I think). 1.2 with the math rewrite (I think) One particular problem (which could be avoided) was to know what to do when for example #1 is used twice. This did not work at all in pre 1.2 times. Andre'
Re: math-macro and inline editing
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Andre Navigation between the arguments is non-obvious. Macro Andre arguments can be used more than once. We could decide that only the first instance is editable, or that they are all editable and the result is visible in all instance at the same time... JMarc
Re: math-macro and inline editing
Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Navigation between the arguments is non-obvious. Macro arguments can be used more than once. But as I understand the second part of the macro is the editing template. That uses a usual formula with some holes. If I had typed the same formula manually there would be some navigation logic. Why can't that used here as well, just with some parts being unchangeable because they belong to the template. And even if you just number the holes of the templates and let the cursor jump from n to n+1 and n-1 by left and right would be ok. Don't really see a problem here. As Jean-Marc wrote, if an argument appear more than once, just update all of the appearances. Schimmi
math-macro and inline editing
Hi! I want to make heavy use of math-macros to create type inference rules using proof.sty. I defined some macros using the \frac construct in the right box of the math-macro definition as preview, with several arguments #1, #2, ... In the left box I use the corresponding commands from proof.sty. Everything looks great until I try to edit the arguments of the macro: LyX jumps into a third representation with several line prefixed with #1, #2 to enter the arguments. Is it supposed to work like that? Especially if you nest math-macros in your formulas this style of editing makes it unusable because you easily completely loose track of the structure of your formula. Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Although I don't know LyX's rendering code, it doesn't look to be much more complicated. But maybe I am wrong. Regards Stefan
Re: math-macro and inline editing
Stefan == Stefan Schimanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stefan Everything looks great until I try to edit the arguments Stefan of the macro: LyX jumps into a third representation with Stefan several line prefixed with #1, #2 to enter the arguments. Is Stefan it supposed to work like that? Especially if you nest Stefan math-macros in your formulas this style of editing makes it Stefan unusable because you easily completely loose track of the Stefan structure of your formula. Stefan Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with Stefan some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Although I don't know Stefan LyX's rendering code, it doesn't look to be much more Stefan complicated. But maybe I am wrong. It used to do that, but this was changed in 1.3.x (I think). One particular problem (which could be avoided) was to know what to do when for example #1 is used twice. I also think this should be reverted. But we have to find somebody who wants to actually do it :) JMarc
Re: math-macro and inline editing
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:24:23AM +, Stefan Schimanski wrote: Everything looks great until I try to edit the arguments of the macro: LyX jumps into a third representation with several line prefixed with #1, #2 to enter the arguments. Is it supposed to work like that? Sort of, yes. So far no better idea has been proposed/implemented. Especially if you nest math-macros in your formulas this style of editing makes it unusable because you easily completely loose track of the structure of your formula. Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Navigation between the arguments is non-obvious. Macro arguments can be used more than once. Although I don't know LyX's rendering code, it doesn't look to be much more complicated. But maybe I am wrong. Just try to implement something better. If it works out, we should use that. Andre'
Re: math-macro and inline editing
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:54:06PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: It used to do that, but this was changed in 1.3.x (I think). 1.2 with the math rewrite (I think) One particular problem (which could be avoided) was to know what to do when for example #1 is used twice. This did not work at all in pre 1.2 times. Andre'
Re: math-macro and inline editing
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Andre Navigation between the arguments is non-obvious. Macro Andre arguments can be used more than once. We could decide that only the first instance is editable, or that they are all editable and the result is visible in all instance at the same time... JMarc
Re: math-macro and inline editing
Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Navigation between the arguments is non-obvious. Macro arguments can be used more than once. But as I understand the second part of the macro is the editing template. That uses a usual formula with some holes. If I had typed the same formula manually there would be some navigation logic. Why can't that used here as well, just with some parts being unchangeable because they belong to the template. And even if you just number the holes of the templates and let the cursor jump from n to n+1 and n-1 by left and right would be ok. Don't really see a problem here. As Jean-Marc wrote, if an argument appear more than once, just update all of the appearances. Schimmi
math-macro and inline editing
Hi! I want to make heavy use of math-macros to create type inference rules using proof.sty. I defined some macros using the \frac construct in the right box of the math-macro definition as preview, with several arguments #1, #2, ... In the left box I use the corresponding commands from proof.sty. Everything looks great until I try to edit the arguments of the macro: LyX jumps into a third representation with several line prefixed with #1, #2 to enter the arguments. Is it supposed to work like that? Especially if you nest math-macros in your formulas this style of editing makes it unusable because you easily completely loose track of the structure of your formula. Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Although I don't know LyX's rendering code, it doesn't look to be much more complicated. But maybe I am wrong. Regards Stefan
Re: math-macro and inline editing
> "Stefan" == Stefan Schimanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stefan> Everything looks great until I try to edit the arguments Stefan> of the macro: LyX jumps into a third representation with Stefan> several line prefixed with #1, #2 to enter the arguments. Is Stefan> it supposed to work like that? Especially if you nest Stefan> math-macros in your formulas this style of editing makes it Stefan> unusable because you easily completely loose track of the Stefan> structure of your formula. Stefan> Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with Stefan> some placeholder boxes as the arguments? Although I don't know Stefan> LyX's rendering code, it doesn't look to be much more Stefan> complicated. But maybe I am wrong. It used to do that, but this was changed in 1.3.x (I think). One particular problem (which could be avoided) was to know what to do when for example #1 is used twice. I also think this should be reverted. But we have to find somebody who wants to actually do it :) JMarc
Re: math-macro and inline editing
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:24:23AM +, Stefan Schimanski wrote: > Everything looks great until I try to edit the arguments of the > macro: LyX jumps into a third representation with several line > prefixed with #1, #2 to enter the arguments. Is it supposed to work > like that? Sort of, yes. So far no better idea has been proposed/implemented. > Especially if you nest math-macros in your formulas this > style of editing makes it unusable because you easily completely loose > track of the structure of your formula. > > Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some > placeholder boxes as the arguments? Navigation between the arguments is non-obvious. Macro arguments can be used more than once. > Although I don't know LyX's rendering code, it doesn't look to be much > more complicated. But maybe I am wrong. Just try to implement something better. If it works out, we should use that. Andre'
Re: math-macro and inline editing
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:54:06PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > It used to do that, but this was changed in 1.3.x (I think). 1.2 with the math rewrite (I think) > One particular problem (which could be avoided) was to know what to do > when for example #1 is used twice. This did not work at all in pre 1.2 times. Andre'
Re: math-macro and inline editing
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some >> placeholder boxes as the arguments? Andre> Navigation between the arguments is non-obvious. Macro Andre> arguments can be used more than once. We could decide that only the first instance is editable, or that they are all editable and the result is visible in all instance at the same time... JMarc
Re: math-macro and inline editing
>> Why isn't LyX using my preview definition for the macro with some >> placeholder boxes as the arguments? > > Navigation between the arguments is non-obvious. > Macro arguments can be used more than once. But as I understand the second part of the macro is the editing template. That uses a "usual" formula with some holes. If I had typed the same formula manually there would be some navigation logic. Why can't that used here as well, just with some parts being unchangeable because they belong to the template. And even if you just number the holes of the templates and let the cursor jump from n to n+1 and n-1 by left and right would be ok. Don't really see a problem here. As Jean-Marc wrote, if an argument appear more than once, just update all of the appearances. Schimmi
