Re: Is it possible to control references format?

2013-12-19 Thread Fabio S.

I think you want to insert cross-references with the Format: box set to
formatted reference. See section 6.1 of the User Guide for details.

Paul


First, thanks for your hint.

If I get it right, your suggestion is to use the refstyle package (which 
is what is done using formatted reference) and define a custom

refstyle.cfg in order to get the desired result.
To obtain this, I should pass the noconfig option to refstyle.

Now, if I insert it in the field
Document - Settings - Document class - Custom
it is not passed to refstyle.

If I insert manually in the preamble
\usepackage[noconfig]{refstyle}
I get an error.

So, how do I pass the noconfig options to refstyle?

BTW: I don't know why, but in my case refstyle is not localized.

Fabio


Re: Is it possible to control references format?

2013-12-19 Thread Fabio S.

I think you want to insert cross-references with the Format: box set to
formatted reference. See section 6.1 of the User Guide for details.

Paul


First, thanks for your hint.

If I get it right, your suggestion is to use the refstyle package (which 
is what is done using formatted reference) and define a custom

refstyle.cfg in order to get the desired result.
To obtain this, I should pass the noconfig option to refstyle.

Now, if I insert it in the field
Document - Settings - Document class - Custom
it is not passed to refstyle.

If I insert manually in the preamble
\usepackage[noconfig]{refstyle}
I get an error.

So, how do I pass the noconfig options to refstyle?

BTW: I don't know why, but in my case refstyle is not localized.

Fabio


Re: Is it possible to control references format?

2013-12-19 Thread Fabio S.

I think you want to insert cross-references with the Format: box set to
"formatted reference". See section 6.1 of the User Guide for details.

Paul


First, thanks for your hint.

If I get it right, your suggestion is to use the refstyle package (which 
is what is done using "formatted reference") and define a custom

refstyle.cfg in order to get the desired result.
To obtain this, I should pass the noconfig option to refstyle.

Now, if I insert it in the field
Document -> Settings -> Document class -> Custom
it is not passed to refstyle.

If I insert manually in the preamble
\usepackage[noconfig]{refstyle}
I get an error.

So, how do I pass the noconfig options to refstyle?

BTW: I don't know why, but in my case refstyle is not localized.

Fabio


Is it possible to control references format?

2013-12-18 Thread Fabio S.


Hi all,

I am wondering if it is possible to control the format of references 
inside a document from the document settings.
I mean: I would like to have all references to equations (that is, label 
of the form eq:* ) formatted as (.), references to thm:* formatted as [.] 
and all others simply as a number. This should be defined somewhere inside 
the document settings.


From the searches I made, I concluded that this is not possible: I must 

check every single reference and include manually the desired delimiters.

Am I wrong?

TIA

Fabio



Is it possible to control references format?

2013-12-18 Thread Fabio S.


Hi all,

I am wondering if it is possible to control the format of references 
inside a document from the document settings.
I mean: I would like to have all references to equations (that is, label 
of the form eq:* ) formatted as (.), references to thm:* formatted as [.] 
and all others simply as a number. This should be defined somewhere inside 
the document settings.


From the searches I made, I concluded that this is not possible: I must 

check every single reference and include manually the desired delimiters.

Am I wrong?

TIA

Fabio



Is it possible to control references format?

2013-12-18 Thread Fabio S.


Hi all,

I am wondering if it is possible to control the format of references 
inside a document from the document settings.
I mean: I would like to have all references to equations (that is, label 
of the form eq:* ) formatted as (.), references to thm:* formatted as [.] 
and all others simply as a number. This should be defined somewhere inside 
the document settings.


From the searches I made, I concluded that this is not possible: I must 

check every single reference and include manually the desired delimiters.

Am I wrong?

TIA

Fabio



How to source my own definitions?

2013-11-22 Thread Fabio S.


Hi all,

I have a set of math macros defined with the math-macro command.
I would like to save them on a separate file so that I don't have to 
cutpaste them in every new file.

I saved them in a file, mydefs.tex. It contains things like
\global\long\def\rk{\operatorname{rk}}
and so on.
I \input{mydefs} in the preamble and they are correctly sourced: the only 
problem is that I lose the visual rendering in the lyx document that I 
defined with the math-macro command.


Is there a solution for this?

Thanks

Fabio



Re: How to source my own definitions?

2013-11-22 Thread Fabio S.
Ok, I found by myself the solution: in addition to \input{mydefs} insert 
in a comment a lyx file mydefs.lyx with the definitions.


Not exactly what I wanted, but it works and I guess it can't be done 
better, since this is what can be found lyx wiki.


Sorry for asking.

F.



Re: How to source my own definitions?

2013-11-22 Thread Fabio S.
I just put my math macros in mydefs.lyx and then include that file as a child 
document, outside a comment, right at the beginning of the main body. Is 
there some reason that does not work for you?




Well, in fact it works and it is what I wanted: I simply couldn't find 
the right menu path :(


Thank you

Fabio


How to source my own definitions?

2013-11-22 Thread Fabio S.


Hi all,

I have a set of math macros defined with the math-macro command.
I would like to save them on a separate file so that I don't have to 
cutpaste them in every new file.

I saved them in a file, mydefs.tex. It contains things like
\global\long\def\rk{\operatorname{rk}}
and so on.
I \input{mydefs} in the preamble and they are correctly sourced: the only 
problem is that I lose the visual rendering in the lyx document that I 
defined with the math-macro command.


Is there a solution for this?

Thanks

Fabio



Re: How to source my own definitions?

2013-11-22 Thread Fabio S.
Ok, I found by myself the solution: in addition to \input{mydefs} insert 
in a comment a lyx file mydefs.lyx with the definitions.


Not exactly what I wanted, but it works and I guess it can't be done 
better, since this is what can be found lyx wiki.


Sorry for asking.

F.



Re: How to source my own definitions?

2013-11-22 Thread Fabio S.
I just put my math macros in mydefs.lyx and then include that file as a child 
document, outside a comment, right at the beginning of the main body. Is 
there some reason that does not work for you?




Well, in fact it works and it is what I wanted: I simply couldn't find 
the right menu path :(


Thank you

Fabio


How to source my own definitions?

2013-11-22 Thread Fabio S.


Hi all,

I have a set of math macros defined with the math-macro command.
I would like to save them on a separate file so that I don't have to 
cut them in every new file.

I saved them in a file, mydefs.tex. It contains things like
\global\long\def\rk{\operatorname{rk}}
and so on.
I \input{mydefs} in the preamble and they are correctly sourced: the only 
problem is that I lose the visual rendering in the lyx document that I 
defined with the math-macro command.


Is there a solution for this?

Thanks

Fabio



Re: How to source my own definitions?

2013-11-22 Thread Fabio S.
Ok, I found by myself the solution: in addition to \input{mydefs} insert 
in a comment a lyx file mydefs.lyx with the definitions.


Not exactly what I wanted, but it works and I guess it can't be done 
better, since this is what can be found lyx wiki.


Sorry for asking.

F.



Re: How to source my own definitions?

2013-11-22 Thread Fabio S.
I just put my math macros in mydefs.lyx and then include that file as a child 
document, outside a comment, right at the beginning of the main body. Is 
there some reason that does not work for you?




Well, in fact it works and it is what I wanted: I simply couldn't find 
the right menu path :(


Thank you

Fabio


Re: ubuntu 13.10 - changing language causes error

2013-10-30 Thread Fabio S.

As a user what I observerd was that after ubuntu was updated lyx stopped
working, that is a fact. I think we all agree that shouldn't happen, so
it would be good to find the cause and make sure it doesn't happen in
future upgrades.

...

That should be the principle, but my experience is that if an upgrade 
is flawlessly successfull then you have been very lucky and I think that 
looking for upgrade bugs (which can be specific to that particular 
upgrade) can be both difficult and a waste of time for developers.


What I do (and I suggest) is the following: partition your disk so to have 
two linux-dedicated partitions, say 1 and 2, and let's say you have a
working linux on 1. When you want to install a new linux distribution (not 
necessarly ubuntu)  then  install it on 2 and just play with it 
configuring everything for your needs. When it looks stable to you, move 
your personal data (your home) on the new partition and don't use 1 any 
longer. This way, 1 will be available for the next installation.


Two objections can be made to this schema:

1) there is a waste of disk space
2) it looks like a waste of time, since you have to set up everything 
again.


What I can say is that:

1) disk space is cheap nowadays: if you store space hungry data (videos, 
pictures and music) on a separate partition to be mounted separately, 50Gb 
is more than enough for the system. Moreover, you can think of it as a 
backup: you still have your good old working system with your home, since 
you don't touch it.


2) this is true only if the upgrade is smooth. Otherwise, it is probably 
true the contrary. Moreover,if you pass from one ubuntu to another and you 
keep track of what you had to do to have a system which fits your needs, 
very likely the next time it will be much faster (and nearly as fast as a 
smooth upgrade).


Regards

Fabio


Re: ubuntu 13.10 - changing language causes error

2013-10-30 Thread Fabio S.

As a user what I observerd was that after ubuntu was updated lyx stopped
working, that is a fact. I think we all agree that shouldn't happen, so
it would be good to find the cause and make sure it doesn't happen in
future upgrades.

...

That should be the principle, but my experience is that if an upgrade 
is flawlessly successfull then you have been very lucky and I think that 
looking for upgrade bugs (which can be specific to that particular 
upgrade) can be both difficult and a waste of time for developers.


What I do (and I suggest) is the following: partition your disk so to have 
two linux-dedicated partitions, say 1 and 2, and let's say you have a
working linux on 1. When you want to install a new linux distribution (not 
necessarly ubuntu)  then  install it on 2 and just play with it 
configuring everything for your needs. When it looks stable to you, move 
your personal data (your home) on the new partition and don't use 1 any 
longer. This way, 1 will be available for the next installation.


Two objections can be made to this schema:

1) there is a waste of disk space
2) it looks like a waste of time, since you have to set up everything 
again.


What I can say is that:

1) disk space is cheap nowadays: if you store space hungry data (videos, 
pictures and music) on a separate partition to be mounted separately, 50Gb 
is more than enough for the system. Moreover, you can think of it as a 
backup: you still have your good old working system with your home, since 
you don't touch it.


2) this is true only if the upgrade is smooth. Otherwise, it is probably 
true the contrary. Moreover,if you pass from one ubuntu to another and you 
keep track of what you had to do to have a system which fits your needs, 
very likely the next time it will be much faster (and nearly as fast as a 
smooth upgrade).


Regards

Fabio


Re: ubuntu 13.10 - changing language causes error

2013-10-30 Thread Fabio S.

As a user what I observerd was that after ubuntu was updated lyx stopped
working, that is a fact. I think we all agree that shouldn't happen, so
it would be good to find the cause and make sure it doesn't happen in
future upgrades.

...

That should be the principle, but my experience is that if an upgrade 
is flawlessly successfull then you have been very lucky and I think that 
looking for upgrade bugs (which can be specific to that particular 
upgrade) can be both difficult and a waste of time for developers.


What I do (and I suggest) is the following: partition your disk so to have 
two linux-dedicated partitions, say 1 and 2, and let's say you have a
working linux on 1. When you want to install a new linux distribution (not 
necessarly ubuntu)  then  install it on 2 and just play with it 
configuring everything for your needs. When it looks stable to you, move 
your personal data (your home) on the new partition and don't use 1 any 
longer. This way, 1 will be available for the next installation.


Two objections can be made to this schema:

1) there is a waste of disk space
2) it looks like a waste of time, since you have to set up everything 
again.


What I can say is that:

1) disk space is cheap nowadays: if you store space hungry data (videos, 
pictures and music) on a separate partition to be mounted separately, 50Gb 
is more than enough for the system. Moreover, you can think of it as a 
backup: you still have your good old working system with your home, since 
you don't touch it.


2) this is true only if the upgrade is smooth. Otherwise, it is probably 
true the contrary. Moreover,if you pass from one ubuntu to another and you 
keep track of what you had to do to have a system which fits your needs, 
very likely the next time it will be much faster (and nearly as fast as a 
smooth upgrade).


Regards

Fabio


Shortcuts for \ldots

2013-10-17 Thread Fabio S.


I would like to have a shortcut for \ldots.
My preferred would be three dots, that is

\bind period period period math-insert \\ldots

but it doesn't work: what am I missing?

Thanks

Fabio


Re: Shortcuts for \ldots

2013-10-17 Thread Fabio S.

I would like to have a shortcut for \ldots.
My preferred would be three dots, that is

\bind period period period math-insert \\ldots

but it doesn't work: what am I missing?


You now that \ldots (in text mode, though) is bound to Alt-period by default?



Yes, I know, but I hardly use it in text mode, if ever, whereas I use it 
quite often in math mode: so I have unbound it and I made the shortcuts


\bind M-comma M-comma M-comma math-insert ,\\ldots,
\bind M-period M-period M-period math-insert \\cdots

They make my workflow faster, but I can't guess why they don't work 
without the Alt modifier.


Fabio


Shortcuts for \ldots

2013-10-17 Thread Fabio S.


I would like to have a shortcut for \ldots.
My preferred would be three dots, that is

\bind period period period math-insert \\ldots

but it doesn't work: what am I missing?

Thanks

Fabio


Re: Shortcuts for \ldots

2013-10-17 Thread Fabio S.

I would like to have a shortcut for \ldots.
My preferred would be three dots, that is

\bind period period period math-insert \\ldots

but it doesn't work: what am I missing?


You now that \ldots (in text mode, though) is bound to Alt-period by default?



Yes, I know, but I hardly use it in text mode, if ever, whereas I use it 
quite often in math mode: so I have unbound it and I made the shortcuts


\bind M-comma M-comma M-comma math-insert ,\\ldots,
\bind M-period M-period M-period math-insert \\cdots

They make my workflow faster, but I can't guess why they don't work 
without the Alt modifier.


Fabio


Shortcuts for \ldots

2013-10-17 Thread Fabio S.


I would like to have a shortcut for \ldots.
My preferred would be three dots, that is

\bind "period period period" "math-insert \\ldots"

but it doesn't work: what am I missing?

Thanks

Fabio


Re: Shortcuts for \ldots

2013-10-17 Thread Fabio S.

I would like to have a shortcut for \ldots.
My preferred would be three dots, that is

\bind "period period period" "math-insert \\ldots"

but it doesn't work: what am I missing?


You now that \ldots (in text mode, though) is bound to Alt-period by default?



Yes, I know, but I hardly use it in text mode, if ever, whereas I use it 
quite often in math mode: so I have unbound it and I made the shortcuts


\bind "M-comma M-comma M-comma" "math-insert ,\\ldots,"
\bind "M-period M-period M-period" "math-insert \\cdots"

They make my workflow faster, but I can't guess why they don't work 
without the Alt modifier.


Fabio


Re: Nested evnironments

2013-09-26 Thread Fabio S.
It works, but I am wondering there is a clean way to obtain the intended 
result.


No, that's the sort of trick you have to use. Unless you set KeepEmpty to 1 
in your theorem environment, which would allow you not to put the ~.




Ok, I see.

BTW, I discovered that using an empty red box is a better work around, 
since the exported latex is clean as I intended.


Thanks

Fabio


Re: Nested evnironments

2013-09-26 Thread Fabio S.
It works, but I am wondering there is a clean way to obtain the intended 
result.


No, that's the sort of trick you have to use. Unless you set KeepEmpty to 1 
in your theorem environment, which would allow you not to put the ~.




Ok, I see.

BTW, I discovered that using an empty red box is a better work around, 
since the exported latex is clean as I intended.


Thanks

Fabio


Re: Nested evnironments

2013-09-26 Thread Fabio S.
It works, but I am wondering there is a "clean" way to obtain the intended 
result.


No, that's the sort of trick you have to use. Unless you set "KeepEmpty" to 1 
in your theorem environment, which would allow you not to put the ~.




Ok, I see.

BTW, I discovered that using an empty red box is a better work around, 
since the exported latex is clean as I intended.


Thanks

Fabio


Nested evnironments

2013-09-25 Thread Fabio S.


Hi,

I have a little problem with nested environments.

I want to enumerate statements in a theorem without any test before the 
enumeration, so that the latex should be something like


\begin{thm}
\begin{enumerate}
\item First statement
\item Second statement
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

You can guess: when I try to insert the enumerate environment, the theorem 
enviroment disappear.
I can work around this inserting a forced space (Ctrl+Space), then I 
insert the enumerate environment, then I nest it inside the theorem 
environment.

The resulting latex looks like

\begin{thm}
~
\begin{enumerate}
\item First statement
\item Second statement
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

It works, but I am wondering there is a clean way to obtain the intended 
result.


Thanks

Fabio






Nested evnironments

2013-09-25 Thread Fabio S.


Hi,

I have a little problem with nested environments.

I want to enumerate statements in a theorem without any test before the 
enumeration, so that the latex should be something like


\begin{thm}
\begin{enumerate}
\item First statement
\item Second statement
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

You can guess: when I try to insert the enumerate environment, the theorem 
enviroment disappear.
I can work around this inserting a forced space (Ctrl+Space), then I 
insert the enumerate environment, then I nest it inside the theorem 
environment.

The resulting latex looks like

\begin{thm}
~
\begin{enumerate}
\item First statement
\item Second statement
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

It works, but I am wondering there is a clean way to obtain the intended 
result.


Thanks

Fabio






Nested evnironments

2013-09-25 Thread Fabio S.


Hi,

I have a little problem with nested environments.

I want to enumerate statements in a theorem without any test before the 
enumeration, so that the latex should be something like


\begin{thm}
\begin{enumerate}
\item First statement
\item Second statement
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

You can guess: when I try to insert the enumerate environment, the theorem 
enviroment disappear.
I can work around this inserting a forced space (Ctrl+Space), then I 
insert the enumerate environment, then I nest it inside the theorem 
environment.

The resulting latex looks like

\begin{thm}
~
\begin{enumerate}
\item First statement
\item Second statement
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

It works, but I am wondering there is a "clean" way to obtain the intended 
result.


Thanks

Fabio






Re: Reverse search with xdvi

2013-09-09 Thread Fabio S.

direct search:
Tools-Preferences-Output-General
 xdvi -nofork -sourceposition $$n $$t $$o -editor 
lyxeditor.sh %f
%l


-nofork part is needed because of the pipe?


I guess: the point is that without -nofork if you have xdvi already open,
lyx starts a new instance every time you execute direct search.
I also addedd the -editor option.


Have you really tried without nofork option?
I just tried the standard call
xdvi -sourceposition 445:example.tex example.dvi
and no new instance was opened, instead it correctly jumped in already existing
viewer.


Yes, I really tried both and it was like I described. I am sure: I clearly 
remember having two open instances of xdvi.
But now I tried again and it works correctly even without the nofork 
options.


I can't understand what is happening! I am puzzled. :(

F.


Re: Reverse search with xdvi

2013-09-09 Thread Fabio S.

direct search:
Tools-Preferences-Output-General
 xdvi -nofork -sourceposition $$n $$t $$o -editor 
lyxeditor.sh %f
%l


-nofork part is needed because of the pipe?


I guess: the point is that without -nofork if you have xdvi already open,
lyx starts a new instance every time you execute direct search.
I also addedd the -editor option.


Have you really tried without nofork option?
I just tried the standard call
xdvi -sourceposition 445:example.tex example.dvi
and no new instance was opened, instead it correctly jumped in already existing
viewer.


Yes, I really tried both and it was like I described. I am sure: I clearly 
remember having two open instances of xdvi.
But now I tried again and it works correctly even without the nofork 
options.


I can't understand what is happening! I am puzzled. :(

F.


Re: Reverse search with xdvi

2013-09-09 Thread Fabio S.

direct search:
Tools->Preferences->Output->General
 xdvi -nofork -sourceposition "$$n $$t" $$o -editor 
"lyxeditor.sh %f
%l"


"-nofork" part is needed because of the pipe?


I guess: the point is that without -nofork if you have xdvi already open,
lyx starts a new instance every time you execute direct search.
I also addedd the -editor option.


Have you really tried without nofork option?
I just tried the standard call
xdvi -sourceposition 445:example.tex example.dvi
and no new instance was opened, instead it correctly jumped in already existing
viewer.


Yes, I really tried both and it was like I described. I am sure: I clearly 
remember having two open instances of xdvi.
But now I tried again and it works correctly even without the nofork 
options.


I can't understand what is happening! I am puzzled. :(

F.


Re: Reverse search with xdvi

2013-09-06 Thread Fabio S.

If you can comment what and why was changed I can include it into docs as well.



ok.



xdvi:
inverse search:
Tools-Preferences-File Handling-File formats
 xdvi -editor lyxeditor.sh %f %l


In the docs: xdvi -editor 'lyxeditor.sh %f %l'
With single quotes it doesn't work (at least, for me)


direct search:
Tools-Preferences-Output-General
 xdvi -nofork -sourceposition $$n $$t $$o -editor lyxeditor.sh %f 
%l


-nofork part is needed because of the pipe?


I guess: the point is that without -nofork if you have xdvi already open, 
lyx starts a new instance every time you execute direct search.

I also addedd the -editor option.


okular:
inverse search:
Tools-Preferences-File Handling-File formats
 okular --unique


I'm not using okular, --unique should be default for inverse search purposes?


The default just says okular and the same in the following: I don't know 
wether it adds any option or not, but to have the correct behaviour 
without multiple instances of okular I had to specify these by hand.





direct search:
Tools-Preferences-Output-General
 okular --unique $$o#src:$$n $$f


Pavel



Thanks

Fabio


Re: Reverse search with xdvi

2013-09-06 Thread Fabio S.

If you can comment what and why was changed I can include it into docs as well.



ok.



xdvi:
inverse search:
Tools-Preferences-File Handling-File formats
 xdvi -editor lyxeditor.sh %f %l


In the docs: xdvi -editor 'lyxeditor.sh %f %l'
With single quotes it doesn't work (at least, for me)


direct search:
Tools-Preferences-Output-General
 xdvi -nofork -sourceposition $$n $$t $$o -editor lyxeditor.sh %f 
%l


-nofork part is needed because of the pipe?


I guess: the point is that without -nofork if you have xdvi already open, 
lyx starts a new instance every time you execute direct search.

I also addedd the -editor option.


okular:
inverse search:
Tools-Preferences-File Handling-File formats
 okular --unique


I'm not using okular, --unique should be default for inverse search purposes?


The default just says okular and the same in the following: I don't know 
wether it adds any option or not, but to have the correct behaviour 
without multiple instances of okular I had to specify these by hand.





direct search:
Tools-Preferences-Output-General
 okular --unique $$o#src:$$n $$f


Pavel



Thanks

Fabio


Re: Reverse search with xdvi

2013-09-06 Thread Fabio S.

If you can comment what and why was changed I can include it into docs as well.



ok.



xdvi:
inverse search:
Tools->Preferences->File Handling->File formats
 xdvi -editor "lyxeditor.sh %f %l"


In the docs: xdvi -editor 'lyxeditor.sh %f %l'
With single quotes it doesn't work (at least, for me)


direct search:
Tools->Preferences->Output->General
 xdvi -nofork -sourceposition "$$n $$t" $$o -editor "lyxeditor.sh %f 
%l"


"-nofork" part is needed because of the pipe?


I guess: the point is that without -nofork if you have xdvi already open, 
lyx starts a new instance every time you execute direct search.

I also addedd the -editor option.


okular:
inverse search:
Tools->Preferences->File Handling->File formats
 okular --unique


I'm not using okular, --unique should be default for inverse search purposes?


The default just says "okular" and the same in the following: I don't know 
wether it adds any option or not, but to have the correct behaviour 
without multiple instances of okular I had to specify these by hand.





direct search:
Tools->Preferences->Output->General
 okular --unique "$$o#src:$$n $$f"


Pavel



Thanks

Fabio