Bo Peng wrote:
> That is *too much* work!
Hm, you only have to copy the Listings->ERT conversion you already have done
to the 273->272 chain and add a check for @params.
In the future, you will have to add a simple check that adds/removes @ for
newly supported params (no ERT conversion necessar
There's no other possibility IMO.
That is *too much* work!
I will propose, instead,
1. revert my @ idea
2. add a checkbox like 'bypass validation', 'use what I have inputted'.
3. if this checkbox is clicked, the parameter is allowed.
In this way, there will be no lyx2lyx problem.
Agreed?
Bo
Bo Peng wrote:
> > But we have to maintain backwards compatibility also within the 1.5
> > cycle. And is the backwards compatibility to 1.4 assured? I.e., will
> > @extraparams be reverted to ERT correctly?
>
> I see a point here. When reverting to ERT, @ needs to be removed. I
> will commit a patc
But we have to maintain backwards compatibility also within the 1.5 cycle.
And is the backwards compatibility to 1.4 assured? I.e., will @extraparams be
reverted to ERT correctly?
I see a point here. When reverting to ERT, @ needs to be removed. I
will commit a patch soon.
IMHO , the only way
Bo Peng wrote:
> I would not consider rc1 because it is a temporary release. After
> 1.5.0, @para will always be accepted and will compile if a user's
> listings package supports para.
But we have to maintain backwards compatibility also within the 1.5 cycle.
And is the backwards compatibility to
But what happens if a file with such a parameter is opened by an older version
(rc1, for instance)? I guess LyX will crash, no?
I would not consider rc1 because it is a temporary release. After
1.5.0, @para will always be accepted and will compile if a user's
listings package supports para.
Of
Bo Peng wrote:
> No. Previously, only valid parameter strings such as 'firstline=5' are
> allowed. Now, trashes like '@IamTrash,firstline=5' can also be
> entered, although in this particular case latex will not compile
> (wrong parameter IamTrash).
But what happens if a file with such a parameter
On 6/9/07, Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Allow prefixing a listings parameter with @ to bypass validation, useful
> when new parameters are added in a new listings version
Isn't this a file format change?
No. Previously, only valid parameter strings s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Allow prefixing a listings parameter with @ to bypass validation, useful
> when new parameters are added in a new listings version
Isn't this a file format change?
Jürgen
