Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
A Requires tag, as a counterpart of the Provides tag.
patch attached.
I guess this needs a layout format increment, right?
Jürgen
Index: src/TextClass.cpp
===
--- src/TextClass.cpp (Revision 22411)
+++
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
A Requires tag, as a counterpart of the Provides tag.
patch attached.
I guess this needs a layout format increment, right?
Yes, it would.
Something like this will work. Just a couple thoughts.
First, I don't think we want to
rgheck wrote:
Yes, it would.
OK. I'll do this before I commit anything.
Something like this will work. Just a couple thoughts.
First, I don't think we want to tie this too tightly to LaTeXFeatures,
so that we have to hardcode what packages can be Required. This will
make maintenance
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
rgheck wrote:
Yes, it would.
OK. I'll do this before I commit anything.
Something like this will work. Just a couple thoughts.
First, I don't think we want to tie this too tightly to LaTeXFeatures,
so that we have to hardcode what packages can be
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
rgheck wrote:
I think this is a different issue. If someone wants to Require a package
we don't have listed in LaTeXFeatures, then, yes, we can't check for it,
and so we ought to ignore it for that purpose. But that's different from
saying they can't Require such a
rgheck wrote:
I think this is a different issue. If someone wants to Require a package
we don't have listed in LaTeXFeatures, then, yes, we can't check for it,
and so we ought to ignore it for that purpose. But that's different from
saying they can't Require such a package at all. Actually,
rgheck wrote:
Right, of course. We should document, then, that Requires only works for
packages known to LyX.
I'll do that.
What we can do, eventually, is to simply add a \usepackage call with all
remaining unknown required packages at the very end. For this, though,
we need to know
The idea is that there can be incompatible modules: The Theorems and
Theorems (AMS) modules are an example. And there may be modules that
require other ones. So this will provide a facility for tracking that.
I understand. But I don't understand the relation to the optional argument.
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> A "Requires" tag, as a counterpart of the "Provides" tag.
patch attached.
I guess this needs a layout format increment, right?
Jürgen
Index: src/TextClass.cpp
===
--- src/TextClass.cpp (Revision 22411)
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
A "Requires" tag, as a counterpart of the "Provides" tag.
patch attached.
I guess this needs a layout format increment, right?
Yes, it would.
Something like this will work. Just a couple thoughts.
First, I don't think we want
rgheck wrote:
> Yes, it would.
OK. I'll do this before I commit anything.
> Something like this will work. Just a couple thoughts.
>
> First, I don't think we want to tie this too tightly to LaTeXFeatures,
> so that we have to hardcode what packages can be Required. This will
> make maintenance
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
rgheck wrote:
Yes, it would.
OK. I'll do this before I commit anything.
Something like this will work. Just a couple thoughts.
First, I don't think we want to tie this too tightly to LaTeXFeatures,
so that we have to hardcode what packages can be
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
rgheck wrote:
I think this is a different issue. If someone wants to Require a package
we don't have listed in LaTeXFeatures, then, yes, we can't check for it,
and so we ought to ignore it for that purpose. But that's different from
saying they can't Require such a
rgheck wrote:
> I think this is a different issue. If someone wants to Require a package
> we don't have listed in LaTeXFeatures, then, yes, we can't check for it,
> and so we ought to ignore it for that purpose. But that's different from
> saying they can't Require such a package at all.
rgheck wrote:
> Right, of course. We should document, then, that Requires only works for
> packages known to LyX.
I'll do that.
> > What we can do, eventually, is to simply add a \usepackage call with all
> > remaining "unknown" required packages at the very end. For this, though,
> > we need to
The idea is that there can be incompatible modules: The Theorems and
Theorems (AMS) modules are an example. And there may be modules that
require other ones. So this will provide a facility for tracking that.
I understand. But I don't understand the relation to the optional argument.
16 matches
Mail list logo
