Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
 No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing
 feature, but that's also where it ended.

Not quite:
http://marc.info/?l=lyx-develm=122813284122303w=2

Jürgen

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Guenter Milde]

On 2009-03-13, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
 Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:

 No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing
 feature, but that's also where it ended.

 Not quite:
 http://marc.info/?l=lyx-develm=122813284122303w=2

Also there is bug #3218 http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218
where I just added this link.

Günter

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
 No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing
 feature, but that's also where it ended.

Not quite:
http://marc.info/?l=lyx-develm=122813284122303w=2

Jürgen

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Guenter Milde]

On 2009-03-13, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
 Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:

 No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing
 feature, but that's also where it ended.

 Not quite:
 http://marc.info/?l=lyx-develm=122813284122303w=2

Also there is bug #3218 http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218
where I just added this link.

Günter

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing
> feature, but that's also where it ended.

Not quite:
http://marc.info/?l=lyx-devel=122813284122303=2

Jürgen

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Guenter Milde]

On 2009-03-13, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:

>> No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing
>> feature, but that's also where it ended.

> Not quite:
> http://marc.info/?l=lyx-devel=122813284122303=2

Also there is bug #3218 
where I just added this link.

Günter

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Guenter Milde]

On 2009-03-11, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
 Richard Heck schreef:
 Axel Heim wrote:
 Hi, on the lyx-webpage (see references below) it is recommended to use a
 math macro file to collect all personal macros. When I do that, I
 encounter the problem that lyx complains with popup windows upon
 compilation if the document class of the child document (which contains
 my macros) is different from the master's one. The compilation works,
 though.
 Is there an easy tweak to get rid of the popups, how do you deal with
 it?


 No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a Don't show 
 this message again type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 
 1.6.2. Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?

 No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing 
 feature, but that's also where it ended.

There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218

Günter

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Pavel Sanda]

Guenter Milde wrote:
 There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
 http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218

unfortunately that is not general solution.
pavel

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Pavel Sanda]

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
 No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a Don't show this 
 message again type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 1.6.2. 
 Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?

 rh

 No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing 
 feature, but that's also where it ended.

yes there are bugs waiting for this feature,
eg http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2120

pavel

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Guenter Milde]

On 2009-03-12, Pavel Sanda wrote:
 Guenter Milde wrote:
 There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
 http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218

 unfortunately that is not general solution.

What is missing?

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Pavel Sanda]

Guenter Milde wrote:
 On 2009-03-12, Pavel Sanda wrote:
  Guenter Milde wrote:
  There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
  http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218
 
  unfortunately that is not general solution.
 
 What is missing?

rewrite of the Alert class which could display and remember Do not show me
again checkbox for other instances of this 'repeat' problem.

pavel

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Guenter Milde]

On 2009-03-11, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
 Richard Heck schreef:
 Axel Heim wrote:
 Hi, on the lyx-webpage (see references below) it is recommended to use a
 math macro file to collect all personal macros. When I do that, I
 encounter the problem that lyx complains with popup windows upon
 compilation if the document class of the child document (which contains
 my macros) is different from the master's one. The compilation works,
 though.
 Is there an easy tweak to get rid of the popups, how do you deal with
 it?


 No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a Don't show 
 this message again type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 
 1.6.2. Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?

 No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing 
 feature, but that's also where it ended.

There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218

Günter

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Pavel Sanda]

Guenter Milde wrote:
 There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
 http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218

unfortunately that is not general solution.
pavel

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Pavel Sanda]

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
 No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a Don't show this 
 message again type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 1.6.2. 
 Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?

 rh

 No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing 
 feature, but that's also where it ended.

yes there are bugs waiting for this feature,
eg http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2120

pavel

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Guenter Milde]

On 2009-03-12, Pavel Sanda wrote:
 Guenter Milde wrote:
 There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
 http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218

 unfortunately that is not general solution.

What is missing?

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Pavel Sanda]

Guenter Milde wrote:
 On 2009-03-12, Pavel Sanda wrote:
  Guenter Milde wrote:
  There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
  http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218
 
  unfortunately that is not general solution.
 
 What is missing?

rewrite of the Alert class which could display and remember Do not show me
again checkbox for other instances of this 'repeat' problem.

pavel

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Guenter Milde]

On 2009-03-11, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Richard Heck schreef:
>> Axel Heim wrote:
>>> Hi, on the lyx-webpage (see references below) it is recommended to use a
>>> math macro file to collect all personal macros. When I do that, I
>>> encounter the problem that lyx complains with popup windows upon
>>> compilation if the document class of the child document (which contains
>>> my macros) is different from the master's one. The compilation works,
>>> though.
>>> Is there an easy tweak to get rid of the popups, how do you deal with
>>> it?


>> No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a "Don't show 
>> this message again" type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 
>> 1.6.2. Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?

> No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing 
> feature, but that's also where it ended.

There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218

Günter

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Pavel Sanda]

Guenter Milde wrote:
> There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218

unfortunately that is not general solution.
pavel

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Pavel Sanda]

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>> No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a "Don't show this 
>> message again" type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 1.6.2. 
>> Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?
>>
>> rh
>>
> No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing 
> feature, but that's also where it ended.

yes there are bugs waiting for this feature,
eg http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2120

pavel

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Guenter Milde]

On 2009-03-12, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>> There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
>> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218

> unfortunately that is not general solution.

What is missing?

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Pavel Sanda]

Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2009-03-12, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> There is a request and patch from 2008-11-19 (bug #3218):
> >> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3218
> 
> > unfortunately that is not general solution.
> 
> What is missing?

rewrite of the Alert class which could display and remember "Do not show me
again" checkbox for other instances of this 'repeat' problem.

pavel

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Richard Heck]

Axel Heim wrote:

Hi, on the lyx-webpage (see references below) it is recommended to use a
math macro file to collect all personal macros. When I do that, I
encounter the problem that lyx complains with popup windows upon
compilation if the document class of the child document (which contains
my macros) is different from the master's one. The compilation works,
though.
Is there an easy tweak to get rid of the popups, how do you deal with
it?

  
No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a Don't show 
this message again type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 
1.6.2. Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?


rh

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Richard Heck schreef:

Axel Heim wrote:

Hi, on the lyx-webpage (see references below) it is recommended to use a
math macro file to collect all personal macros. When I do that, I
encounter the problem that lyx complains with popup windows upon
compilation if the document class of the child document (which contains
my macros) is different from the master's one. The compilation works,
though.
Is there an easy tweak to get rid of the popups, how do you deal with
it?

  
No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a Don't show 
this message again type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 
1.6.2. Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?


rh

No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing 
feature, but that's also where it ended.


Vincent

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Richard Heck]

Axel Heim wrote:

Hi, on the lyx-webpage (see references below) it is recommended to use a
math macro file to collect all personal macros. When I do that, I
encounter the problem that lyx complains with popup windows upon
compilation if the document class of the child document (which contains
my macros) is different from the master's one. The compilation works,
though.
Is there an easy tweak to get rid of the popups, how do you deal with
it?

  
No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a Don't show 
this message again type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 
1.6.2. Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?


rh

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Richard Heck schreef:

Axel Heim wrote:

Hi, on the lyx-webpage (see references below) it is recommended to use a
math macro file to collect all personal macros. When I do that, I
encounter the problem that lyx complains with popup windows upon
compilation if the document class of the child document (which contains
my macros) is different from the master's one. The compilation works,
though.
Is there an easy tweak to get rid of the popups, how do you deal with
it?

  
No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a Don't show 
this message again type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 
1.6.2. Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?


rh

No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing 
feature, but that's also where it ended.


Vincent

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Richard Heck]

Axel Heim wrote:

Hi, on the lyx-webpage (see references below) it is recommended to use a
math macro file to collect all personal macros. When I do that, I
encounter the problem that lyx complains with popup windows upon
compilation if the document class of the child document (which contains
my macros) is different from the master's one. The compilation works,
though.
Is there an easy tweak to get rid of the popups, how do you deal with
it?

  
No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a "Don't show 
this message again" type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 
1.6.2. Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?


rh

Re: math-macro-file child-document class issue

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Richard Heck schreef:

Axel Heim wrote:

Hi, on the lyx-webpage (see references below) it is recommended to use a
math macro file to collect all personal macros. When I do that, I
encounter the problem that lyx complains with popup windows upon
compilation if the document class of the child document (which contains
my macros) is different from the master's one. The compilation works,
though.
Is there an easy tweak to get rid of the popups, how do you deal with
it?

  
No, no easy tweak. I think someone may have introduced a "Don't show 
this message again" type thing, but I'm not sure if it'll make it into 
1.6.2. Vincent, did you do that? Or were we just talking about it?


rh

No. Someone just acknowledges that it was a good idea and a missing 
feature, but that's also where it ended.


Vincent

Re: math macro

[anu saxena]

Thanks for taking the time out . Please find a file attached .You wrote
'*Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1,  just as
written, then a space.

You should then see the second shot* .'
I do not get the second shot on typing \#1\times\#1 and then a space


On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, rgheck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 anu saxena wrote:

 Hi Richard
 Once only I got four boxes as displayed in the guide and it worked . Every
 other time when I got just two boxes (Guide shows four boxes ) I tried just
 what you have written and that is what the guide also says, nothing happened
 .

  Oh, I see what you mean about the four boxes. I think. Once a macro with
 three arguments has been properly defined and then you use it, you'll get
 the four boxes: One that shows your formula, and one for each argument. But
 the macro definition itself will show only two, as I said.

 But what do you mean nothing happened? When did nothing happen?

 Maybe we should start with a simple case. Do this. Exactly.

 Alt-x to open the mini-buffer
 Type: math-macro test 1, return.

 You should see the first screenshot below.

 Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1, just as
 written, then a space.

 You should then see the second shot.

 Now enter a new line, type Ctrl-M to get a math formula, and type: \test

 You should now see screenshot three.

 Now you can enter an argument in the argument box. Type: \alpha, then a
 space.

 Screenshot four shows the result.

 Richard

 PS Please reply to the list in case others are following the thread.

  Thanks
 anu

 On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

anu saxena schrieb:

I am trying to create a math macro as described in the
User's guide of the
documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name
3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only
two .

You shouldn't get four boxes, just the two. Then you enter the
formula you want in the first box. Use \#n for the nth argument
of the macro. (You won't see the \, but it's need to signal to
LyX that what follows isn't a literal #.) You can optionally
enter something else to be displayed in LyX in the second box, if
the thing in the first is too complicated and you don't need to
see it. Usually, you just leave the second box empty, in which
case LyX displays what is in the first box.

Richard

Re: math macro

[anu saxena]

I may mention that I have done


 Lyx version 1.4.3

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:26 AM, anu saxena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Thanks for taking the time out . Please find a file attached .You wrote
 '*Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1,  just
 as written, then a space.

 You should then see the second shot* .'
 I do not get the second shot on typing \#1\times\#1 and then a space
 Please note I have done this in Lyx version 1.4.3

 On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, rgheck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 anu saxena wrote:

 Hi Richard
 Once only I got four boxes as displayed in the guide and it worked .
 Every other time when I got just two boxes (Guide shows four boxes ) I tried
 just what you have written and that is what the guide also says, nothing
 happened .

  Oh, I see what you mean about the four boxes. I think. Once a macro with
 three arguments has been properly defined and then you use it, you'll get
 the four boxes: One that shows your formula, and one for each argument. But
 the macro definition itself will show only two, as I said.

 But what do you mean nothing happened? When did nothing happen?

 Maybe we should start with a simple case. Do this. Exactly.

 Alt-x to open the mini-buffer
 Type: math-macro test 1, return.

 You should see the first screenshot below.

 Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1, just as
 written, then a space.

 You should then see the second shot.

 Now enter a new line, type Ctrl-M to get a math formula, and type: \test

 You should now see screenshot three.

 Now you can enter an argument in the argument box. Type: \alpha, then a
 space.

 Screenshot four shows the result.

 Richard

 PS Please reply to the list in case others are following the thread.

  Thanks
 anu

 On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

anu saxena schrieb:

I am trying to create a math macro as described in the
User's guide of the
documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name
3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only
two .

You shouldn't get four boxes, just the two. Then you enter the
formula you want in the first box. Use \#n for the nth argument
of the macro. (You won't see the \, but it's need to signal to
LyX that what follows isn't a literal #.) You can optionally
enter something else to be displayed in LyX in the second box, if
the thing in the first is too complicated and you don't need to
see it. Usually, you just leave the second box empty, in which
case LyX displays what is in the first box.

Richard

Re: math macro

[rgheck]

anu saxena wrote:

I may mention that I have done Lyx version 1.4.3

  
Oh, well, in that case, you should upgrade to a more recent version. 
That's very old now.


Richard

Re: math macro

[anu saxena]

Thanks for taking the time out . Please find a file attached .You wrote
'*Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1,  just as
written, then a space.

You should then see the second shot* .'
I do not get the second shot on typing \#1\times\#1 and then a space


On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, rgheck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 anu saxena wrote:

 Hi Richard
 Once only I got four boxes as displayed in the guide and it worked . Every
 other time when I got just two boxes (Guide shows four boxes ) I tried just
 what you have written and that is what the guide also says, nothing happened
 .

  Oh, I see what you mean about the four boxes. I think. Once a macro with
 three arguments has been properly defined and then you use it, you'll get
 the four boxes: One that shows your formula, and one for each argument. But
 the macro definition itself will show only two, as I said.

 But what do you mean nothing happened? When did nothing happen?

 Maybe we should start with a simple case. Do this. Exactly.

 Alt-x to open the mini-buffer
 Type: math-macro test 1, return.

 You should see the first screenshot below.

 Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1, just as
 written, then a space.

 You should then see the second shot.

 Now enter a new line, type Ctrl-M to get a math formula, and type: \test

 You should now see screenshot three.

 Now you can enter an argument in the argument box. Type: \alpha, then a
 space.

 Screenshot four shows the result.

 Richard

 PS Please reply to the list in case others are following the thread.

  Thanks
 anu

 On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

anu saxena schrieb:

I am trying to create a math macro as described in the
User's guide of the
documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name
3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only
two .

You shouldn't get four boxes, just the two. Then you enter the
formula you want in the first box. Use \#n for the nth argument
of the macro. (You won't see the \, but it's need to signal to
LyX that what follows isn't a literal #.) You can optionally
enter something else to be displayed in LyX in the second box, if
the thing in the first is too complicated and you don't need to
see it. Usually, you just leave the second box empty, in which
case LyX displays what is in the first box.

Richard

Re: math macro

[anu saxena]

I may mention that I have done


 Lyx version 1.4.3

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:26 AM, anu saxena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Thanks for taking the time out . Please find a file attached .You wrote
 '*Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1,  just
 as written, then a space.

 You should then see the second shot* .'
 I do not get the second shot on typing \#1\times\#1 and then a space
 Please note I have done this in Lyx version 1.4.3

 On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, rgheck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 anu saxena wrote:

 Hi Richard
 Once only I got four boxes as displayed in the guide and it worked .
 Every other time when I got just two boxes (Guide shows four boxes ) I tried
 just what you have written and that is what the guide also says, nothing
 happened .

  Oh, I see what you mean about the four boxes. I think. Once a macro with
 three arguments has been properly defined and then you use it, you'll get
 the four boxes: One that shows your formula, and one for each argument. But
 the macro definition itself will show only two, as I said.

 But what do you mean nothing happened? When did nothing happen?

 Maybe we should start with a simple case. Do this. Exactly.

 Alt-x to open the mini-buffer
 Type: math-macro test 1, return.

 You should see the first screenshot below.

 Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1, just as
 written, then a space.

 You should then see the second shot.

 Now enter a new line, type Ctrl-M to get a math formula, and type: \test

 You should now see screenshot three.

 Now you can enter an argument in the argument box. Type: \alpha, then a
 space.

 Screenshot four shows the result.

 Richard

 PS Please reply to the list in case others are following the thread.

  Thanks
 anu

 On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

anu saxena schrieb:

I am trying to create a math macro as described in the
User's guide of the
documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name
3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only
two .

You shouldn't get four boxes, just the two. Then you enter the
formula you want in the first box. Use \#n for the nth argument
of the macro. (You won't see the \, but it's need to signal to
LyX that what follows isn't a literal #.) You can optionally
enter something else to be displayed in LyX in the second box, if
the thing in the first is too complicated and you don't need to
see it. Usually, you just leave the second box empty, in which
case LyX displays what is in the first box.

Richard

Re: math macro

[rgheck]

anu saxena wrote:

I may mention that I have done Lyx version 1.4.3

  
Oh, well, in that case, you should upgrade to a more recent version. 
That's very old now.


Richard

Re: math macro

[anu saxena]

Thanks for taking the time out . Please find a file attached .You wrote
'*Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1,  just as
written, then a space.

You should then see the second shot* .'
I do not get the second shot on typing \#1\times\#1 and then a space


On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> anu saxena wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard
>> Once only I got four boxes as displayed in the guide and it worked . Every
>> other time when I got just two boxes (Guide shows four boxes ) I tried just
>> what you have written and that is what the guide also says, nothing happened
>> .
>>
>>  Oh, I see what you mean about the four boxes. I think. Once a macro with
> three arguments has been properly defined and then you use it, you'll get
> the four boxes: One that shows your formula, and one for each argument. But
> the macro definition itself will show only two, as I said.
>
> But what do you mean "nothing happened"? When did nothing happen?
>
> Maybe we should start with a simple case. Do this. Exactly.
>
> Alt-x to open the mini-buffer
> Type: math-macro test 1, return.
>
> You should see the first screenshot below.
>
> Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1, just as
> written, then a space.
>
> You should then see the second shot.
>
> Now enter a new line, type Ctrl-M to get a math formula, and type: \test
>
> You should now see screenshot three.
>
> Now you can enter an argument in the argument box. Type: \alpha, then a
> space.
>
> Screenshot four shows the result.
>
> Richard
>
> PS Please reply to the list in case others are following the thread.
>
>  Thanks
>> anu
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>>anu saxena schrieb:
>>
>>I am trying to create a math macro as described in the
>>User's guide of the
>>documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name
>>3 in the
>>mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only
>>two .
>>
>>You shouldn't get four boxes, just the two. Then you enter the
>>formula you want in the first box. Use "\#n" for the nth argument
>>of the macro. (You won't see the "\", but it's need to signal to
>>LyX that what follows isn't a literal "#".) You can optionally
>>enter something else to be displayed in LyX in the second box, if
>>the thing in the first is too complicated and you don't need to
>>see it. Usually, you just leave the second box empty, in which
>>case LyX displays what is in the first box.
>>
>>Richard
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: math macro

[anu saxena]

I may mention that I have done


 Lyx version 1.4.3

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:26 AM, anu saxena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks for taking the time out . Please find a file attached .You wrote
> '*Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1,  just
> as written, then a space.
>
> You should then see the second shot* .'
> I do not get the second shot on typing \#1\times\#1 and then a space
> Please note I have done this in Lyx version 1.4.3
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> anu saxena wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Richard
>>> Once only I got four boxes as displayed in the guide and it worked .
>>> Every other time when I got just two boxes (Guide shows four boxes ) I tried
>>> just what you have written and that is what the guide also says, nothing
>>> happened .
>>>
>>>  Oh, I see what you mean about the four boxes. I think. Once a macro with
>> three arguments has been properly defined and then you use it, you'll get
>> the four boxes: One that shows your formula, and one for each argument. But
>> the macro definition itself will show only two, as I said.
>>
>> But what do you mean "nothing happened"? When did nothing happen?
>>
>> Maybe we should start with a simple case. Do this. Exactly.
>>
>> Alt-x to open the mini-buffer
>> Type: math-macro test 1, return.
>>
>> You should see the first screenshot below.
>>
>> Put the cursor in the first of the boxes, and type: \#1\times\#1, just as
>> written, then a space.
>>
>> You should then see the second shot.
>>
>> Now enter a new line, type Ctrl-M to get a math formula, and type: \test
>>
>> You should now see screenshot three.
>>
>> Now you can enter an argument in the argument box. Type: \alpha, then a
>> space.
>>
>> Screenshot four shows the result.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> PS Please reply to the list in case others are following the thread.
>>
>>  Thanks
>>> anu
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>anu saxena schrieb:
>>>
>>>I am trying to create a math macro as described in the
>>>User's guide of the
>>>documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name
>>>3 in the
>>>mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only
>>>two .
>>>
>>>You shouldn't get four boxes, just the two. Then you enter the
>>>formula you want in the first box. Use "\#n" for the nth argument
>>>of the macro. (You won't see the "\", but it's need to signal to
>>>LyX that what follows isn't a literal "#".) You can optionally
>>>enter something else to be displayed in LyX in the second box, if
>>>the thing in the first is too complicated and you don't need to
>>>see it. Usually, you just leave the second box empty, in which
>>>case LyX displays what is in the first box.
>>>
>>>Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: math macro

[rgheck]

anu saxena wrote:

I may mention that I have done Lyx version 1.4.3

  
Oh, well, in that case, you should upgrade to a more recent version. 
That's very old now.


Richard

Re: math macro

[Uwe Stöhr]

anu saxena schrieb:


I am trying to create a math macro as described in the User's guide of the
documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name 3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only two .


The macro handling in LyX 1.5 is buggy, in the upcoming LyX 1.6 math-macros have been rewritten and 
are now much more usable.


regards Uwe

Re: math macro

[Richard Heck]

anu saxena schrieb:

I am trying to create a math macro as described in the User's guide 
of the

documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name 3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only two .
You shouldn't get four boxes, just the two. Then you enter the formula 
you want in the first box. Use \#n for the nth argument of the macro. 
(You won't see the \, but it's need to signal to LyX that what follows 
isn't a literal #.) You can optionally enter something else to be 
displayed in LyX in the second box, if the thing in the first is too 
complicated and you don't need to see it. Usually, you just leave the 
second box empty, in which case LyX displays what is in the first box.


Richard

Re: math macro

[Uwe Stöhr]

anu saxena schrieb:


I am trying to create a math macro as described in the User's guide of the
documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name 3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only two .


The macro handling in LyX 1.5 is buggy, in the upcoming LyX 1.6 math-macros have been rewritten and 
are now much more usable.


regards Uwe

Re: math macro

[Richard Heck]

anu saxena schrieb:

I am trying to create a math macro as described in the User's guide 
of the

documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name 3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only two .
You shouldn't get four boxes, just the two. Then you enter the formula 
you want in the first box. Use \#n for the nth argument of the macro. 
(You won't see the \, but it's need to signal to LyX that what follows 
isn't a literal #.) You can optionally enter something else to be 
displayed in LyX in the second box, if the thing in the first is too 
complicated and you don't need to see it. Usually, you just leave the 
second box empty, in which case LyX displays what is in the first box.


Richard

Re: math macro

[Uwe Stöhr]

anu saxena schrieb:


I am trying to create a math macro as described in the User's guide of the
documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name 3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only two .


The macro handling in LyX 1.5 is buggy, in the upcoming LyX 1.6 math-macros have been rewritten and 
are now much more usable.


regards Uwe

Re: math macro

[Richard Heck]

anu saxena schrieb:

I am trying to create a math macro as described in the User's guide 
of the

documentation . when I execute the command math-macro name 3 in the
mini-buffer I do not get four red boxes instead I get only two .
You shouldn't get four boxes, just the two. Then you enter the formula 
you want in the first box. Use "\#n" for the nth argument of the macro. 
(You won't see the "\", but it's need to signal to LyX that what follows 
isn't a literal "#".) You can optionally enter something else to be 
displayed in LyX in the second box, if the thing in the first is too 
complicated and you don't need to see it. Usually, you just leave the 
second box empty, in which case LyX displays what is in the first box.


Richard

Re: Math Macro

[Bruce Pourciau]

On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Paul A. Rubin wrote:


rgheck wrote:

Bruce Pourciau wrote:
A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an  
\overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make  
these insertions in math mode as quick as possible?


Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math- 
macro, e.g.:

\newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight  
it, and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. And then, if you like,  
you can define a shortcut for this: math-insert \ora is the  
function you would want.


FYI, you can also type 'math-macro ora 1' in the mini-buffer, then  
put the cursor in the first of the two boxes in the created inset  
and type '\#1' (omitting the quotes both times).  The second box is  
irrelevant. Does the same thing as what Richard suggested.


However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key  
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert  
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math  
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul



Thanks, Richard and Paul. I like the binding key combination idea.  
But I haven't been able to find the steps to do this. I'm on a Mac.  
Do I just find the Mac bind file and edit it?


\Bruce

Re: Math Macro

[Paul A. Rubin]

Bruce Pourciau wrote:

However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key 
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert 
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math 
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul



Thanks, Richard and Paul. I like the binding key combination idea. But I 
haven't been able to find the steps to do this. I'm on a Mac. Do I just 
find the Mac bind file and edit it?


Disclaimer:  I'm not a Mac user (too left-brained, I guess), but I think 
it works pretty much the same there as on other platforms.  Tools - 
Preferences - User interface - Bind file will tell you which bind file 
you are currently using (presumably the one you want to hack).  Browse 
should open the directory it lives in (normally LyX 
root/Resources/bind in my experience).  I suggest you copy it to your 
local bind directory (see Help - About LyX - User dir to locate the 
parent of the local bind directory).  Open it in whatever the Mac text 
editor is and add


\bind ... math-insert \overrightarrow

at the bottom (replacing ... with whatever key combo you want to use). 
Save and restart LyX.  LyX should automatically take the hacked bind 
file in preference to the original.


/Paul

Re: Math Macro

[rgheck]

Paul A. Rubin wrote:

Bruce Pourciau wrote:

However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key 
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert 
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math 
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul



Thanks, Richard and Paul. I like the binding key combination idea. 
But I haven't been able to find the steps to do this. I'm on a Mac. 
Do I just find the Mac bind file and edit it?


Disclaimer:  I'm not a Mac user (too left-brained, I guess), but I 
think it works pretty much the same there as on other platforms.  
Tools - Preferences - User interface - Bind file will tell you 
which bind file you are currently using (presumably the one you want 
to hack).  Browse should open the directory it lives in (normally LyX 
root/Resources/bind in my experience).  I suggest you copy it to your 
local bind directory (see Help - About LyX - User dir to locate the 
parent of the local bind directory).  Open it in whatever the Mac text 
editor is and add


\bind ... math-insert \overrightarrow

at the bottom (replacing ... with whatever key combo you want to use). 
Save and restart LyX.  LyX should automatically take the hacked bind 
file in preference to the original.



That all looks right to me.

FYI, 1.6 will have (when it is released, but it does now have in beta) a 
GUI shortcut editor that makes this easier.


rh

Re: Math Macro

[Bruce Pourciau]

On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Paul A. Rubin wrote:


rgheck wrote:

Bruce Pourciau wrote:
A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an  
\overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make  
these insertions in math mode as quick as possible?


Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math- 
macro, e.g.:

\newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight  
it, and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. And then, if you like,  
you can define a shortcut for this: math-insert \ora is the  
function you would want.


FYI, you can also type 'math-macro ora 1' in the mini-buffer, then  
put the cursor in the first of the two boxes in the created inset  
and type '\#1' (omitting the quotes both times).  The second box is  
irrelevant. Does the same thing as what Richard suggested.


However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key  
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert  
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math  
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul



Thanks, Richard and Paul. I like the binding key combination idea.  
But I haven't been able to find the steps to do this. I'm on a Mac.  
Do I just find the Mac bind file and edit it?


\Bruce

Re: Math Macro

[Paul A. Rubin]

Bruce Pourciau wrote:

However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key 
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert 
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math 
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul



Thanks, Richard and Paul. I like the binding key combination idea. But I 
haven't been able to find the steps to do this. I'm on a Mac. Do I just 
find the Mac bind file and edit it?


Disclaimer:  I'm not a Mac user (too left-brained, I guess), but I think 
it works pretty much the same there as on other platforms.  Tools - 
Preferences - User interface - Bind file will tell you which bind file 
you are currently using (presumably the one you want to hack).  Browse 
should open the directory it lives in (normally LyX 
root/Resources/bind in my experience).  I suggest you copy it to your 
local bind directory (see Help - About LyX - User dir to locate the 
parent of the local bind directory).  Open it in whatever the Mac text 
editor is and add


\bind ... math-insert \overrightarrow

at the bottom (replacing ... with whatever key combo you want to use). 
Save and restart LyX.  LyX should automatically take the hacked bind 
file in preference to the original.


/Paul

Re: Math Macro

[rgheck]

Paul A. Rubin wrote:

Bruce Pourciau wrote:

However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key 
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert 
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math 
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul



Thanks, Richard and Paul. I like the binding key combination idea. 
But I haven't been able to find the steps to do this. I'm on a Mac. 
Do I just find the Mac bind file and edit it?


Disclaimer:  I'm not a Mac user (too left-brained, I guess), but I 
think it works pretty much the same there as on other platforms.  
Tools - Preferences - User interface - Bind file will tell you 
which bind file you are currently using (presumably the one you want 
to hack).  Browse should open the directory it lives in (normally LyX 
root/Resources/bind in my experience).  I suggest you copy it to your 
local bind directory (see Help - About LyX - User dir to locate the 
parent of the local bind directory).  Open it in whatever the Mac text 
editor is and add


\bind ... math-insert \overrightarrow

at the bottom (replacing ... with whatever key combo you want to use). 
Save and restart LyX.  LyX should automatically take the hacked bind 
file in preference to the original.



That all looks right to me.

FYI, 1.6 will have (when it is released, but it does now have in beta) a 
GUI shortcut editor that makes this easier.


rh

Re: Math Macro

[Bruce Pourciau]

On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Paul A. Rubin wrote:


rgheck wrote:

Bruce Pourciau wrote:
A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an  
\overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make  
these insertions in math mode as quick as possible?


Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math- 
macro, e.g.:

\newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight  
it, and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. And then, if you like,  
you can define a shortcut for this: "math-insert \ora" is the  
function you would want.


FYI, you can also type 'math-macro ora 1' in the mini-buffer, then  
put the cursor in the first of the two boxes in the created inset  
and type '\#1' (omitting the quotes both times).  The second box is  
irrelevant. Does the same thing as what Richard suggested.


However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key  
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert  
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math  
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul



Thanks, Richard and Paul. I like the binding key combination idea.  
But I haven't been able to find the steps to do this. I'm on a Mac.  
Do I just find the Mac bind file and edit it?


\Bruce

Re: Math Macro

[Paul A. Rubin]

Bruce Pourciau wrote:

However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key 
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert 
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math 
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul



Thanks, Richard and Paul. I like the binding key combination idea. But I 
haven't been able to find the steps to do this. I'm on a Mac. Do I just 
find the Mac bind file and edit it?


Disclaimer:  I'm not a Mac user (too left-brained, I guess), but I think 
it works pretty much the same there as on other platforms.  Tools -> 
Preferences -> User interface -> Bind file will tell you which bind file 
you are currently using (presumably the one you want to hack).  Browse 
should open the directory it lives in (normally root>/Resources/bind in my experience).  I suggest you copy it to your 
local bind directory (see Help -> About LyX -> User dir to locate the 
parent of the local bind directory).  Open it in whatever the Mac text 
editor is and add


\bind "..." "math-insert \overrightarrow"

at the bottom (replacing ... with whatever key combo you want to use). 
Save and restart LyX.  LyX should automatically take the hacked bind 
file in preference to the original.


/Paul

Re: Math Macro

[rgheck]

Paul A. Rubin wrote:

Bruce Pourciau wrote:

However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key 
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert 
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math 
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul



Thanks, Richard and Paul. I like the binding key combination idea. 
But I haven't been able to find the steps to do this. I'm on a Mac. 
Do I just find the Mac bind file and edit it?


Disclaimer:  I'm not a Mac user (too left-brained, I guess), but I 
think it works pretty much the same there as on other platforms.  
Tools -> Preferences -> User interface -> Bind file will tell you 
which bind file you are currently using (presumably the one you want 
to hack).  Browse should open the directory it lives in (normally root>/Resources/bind in my experience).  I suggest you copy it to your 
local bind directory (see Help -> About LyX -> User dir to locate the 
parent of the local bind directory).  Open it in whatever the Mac text 
editor is and add


\bind "..." "math-insert \overrightarrow"

at the bottom (replacing ... with whatever key combo you want to use). 
Save and restart LyX.  LyX should automatically take the hacked bind 
file in preference to the original.



That all looks right to me.

FYI, 1.6 will have (when it is released, but it does now have in beta) a 
GUI shortcut editor that makes this easier.


rh

Re: Math Macro

[G. Milde]

On 24.07.08, rgheck wrote:
 Bruce Pourciau wrote:
 A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an  
 \overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make these  
 insertions in math mode as quick as possible?

 Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math-macro, e.g.:
 \newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
 Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight it,  
 and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. 

Good hint. (Should be put in the Math guide (if it is not already there and
it still works with the new math macros in 1.6).)

 And then, if you like, you can define a shortcut for this: math-insert
 \ora is the function you would want.

Well, with a shortcut defined in a bind file, you might even leave out
the math-macro definition and do 

  bind  your key   math-insert \overrightarrow
  
Günter  

Re: Math Macro

[Paul A. Rubin]

rgheck wrote:

Bruce Pourciau wrote:
A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an 
\overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make these 
insertions in math mode as quick as possible?



Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math-macro, e.g.:
\newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight it, 
and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. And then, if you like, you can 
define a shortcut for this: math-insert \ora is the function you would 
want.




FYI, you can also type 'math-macro ora 1' in the mini-buffer, then put 
the cursor in the first of the two boxes in the created inset and type 
'\#1' (omitting the quotes both times).  The second box is irrelevant. 
Does the same thing as what Richard suggested.


However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key 
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert 
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math 
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul

Re: Math Macro

[G. Milde]

On 24.07.08, rgheck wrote:
 Bruce Pourciau wrote:
 A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an  
 \overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make these  
 insertions in math mode as quick as possible?

 Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math-macro, e.g.:
 \newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
 Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight it,  
 and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. 

Good hint. (Should be put in the Math guide (if it is not already there and
it still works with the new math macros in 1.6).)

 And then, if you like, you can define a shortcut for this: math-insert
 \ora is the function you would want.

Well, with a shortcut defined in a bind file, you might even leave out
the math-macro definition and do 

  bind  your key   math-insert \overrightarrow
  
Günter  

Re: Math Macro

[Paul A. Rubin]

rgheck wrote:

Bruce Pourciau wrote:
A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an 
\overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make these 
insertions in math mode as quick as possible?



Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math-macro, e.g.:
\newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight it, 
and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. And then, if you like, you can 
define a shortcut for this: math-insert \ora is the function you would 
want.




FYI, you can also type 'math-macro ora 1' in the mini-buffer, then put 
the cursor in the first of the two boxes in the created inset and type 
'\#1' (omitting the quotes both times).  The second box is irrelevant. 
Does the same thing as what Richard suggested.


However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key 
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert 
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math 
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul

Re: Math Macro

[G. Milde]

On 24.07.08, rgheck wrote:
> Bruce Pourciau wrote:
>> A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an  
>> \overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make these  
>> insertions in math mode as quick as possible?

> Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math-macro, e.g.:
> \newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
> Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight it,  
> and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. 

Good hint. (Should be put in the Math guide (if it is not already there and
it still works with the new math macros in 1.6).)

> And then, if you like, you can define a shortcut for this: "math-insert
> \ora" is the function you would want.

Well, with a shortcut defined in a bind file, you might even leave out
the math-macro definition and do 

  bind "math-insert \overrightarrow"
  
Günter  

Re: Math Macro

[Paul A. Rubin]

rgheck wrote:

Bruce Pourciau wrote:
A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an 
\overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make these 
insertions in math mode as quick as possible?



Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math-macro, e.g.:
\newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight it, 
and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. And then, if you like, you can 
define a shortcut for this: "math-insert \ora" is the function you would 
want.




FYI, you can also type 'math-macro ora 1' in the mini-buffer, then put 
the cursor in the first of the two boxes in the created inset and type 
'\#1' (omitting the quotes both times).  The second box is irrelevant. 
Does the same thing as what Richard suggested.


However, I'd be tempted to take a different route.  Pick a key 
combination you don't have much use for and bind it to 'math-insert 
\overrightarrow'.  Then whack that key combo while you're in a math 
inset and type whatever your vectorizing under the arrow.


/Paul

Re: Math Macro

[rgheck]

Bruce Pourciau wrote:
A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an 
\overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make these 
insertions in math mode as quick as possible?



Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math-macro, e.g.:
\newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight it, 
and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. And then, if you like, you can 
define a shortcut for this: math-insert \ora is the function you would 
want.


rh

Re: Math Macro

[rgheck]

Bruce Pourciau wrote:
A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an 
\overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make these 
insertions in math mode as quick as possible?



Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math-macro, e.g.:
\newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight it, 
and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. And then, if you like, you can 
define a shortcut for this: math-insert \ora is the function you would 
want.


rh

Re: Math Macro

[rgheck]

Bruce Pourciau wrote:
A paper I'm writing has a googolplex of symbols with an 
\overrightarrow overhead. What would be the best way to make these 
insertions in math mode as quick as possible?



Well, you can shorten \overrightarrow by defining a quick math-macro, e.g.:
\newcommand{\ora}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
Remember that you can actually type that into LyX, then highlight it, 
and hit Ctrl-M to declare the macro. And then, if you like, you can 
define a shortcut for this: "math-insert \ora" is the function you would 
want.


rh

Re: math-macro and inline editing

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 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

[Andre Poenitz]

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

[Andre Poenitz]

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

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 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

[Stefan Schimanski]

 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

Re: math-macro and inline editing

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 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

[Andre Poenitz]

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

[Andre Poenitz]

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

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

 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

[Stefan Schimanski]

 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

Re: math-macro and inline editing

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

> "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

[Andre Poenitz]

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

[Andre Poenitz]

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

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

> "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

[Stefan Schimanski]

>> 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

Re: math-macro in preamble?

[Jean-Pierre.Chretien]

 Problem is that if I open this lyx document alone (with no lyx files
 that use math-macros currently open), then the macros will not convert
 to what they're supposed to look like.. they'll show up in ERT... is
 there a workaround to this? (I'm currently making sure that I open
 MathMacros.lyx before I open any of the other files..  hope there's
 some neater way of doing this).

What about a wrapper my_lyx:

#!/bin/sh
lyx MathMacros.lyx $1

Then my_lyx foo.lyx will load both files.

-- 
Jean-Pierre

Re: math-macro in preamble?

[Nirmal Govind]

Thanks Andre' and Jean-Pierre.. should I file an enhancement request 
on bugzilla?

I like the wrapper idea.. will use this for now..

nirmal

Re: math-macro in preamble?

[Jean-Pierre.Chretien]

 Problem is that if I open this lyx document alone (with no lyx files
 that use math-macros currently open), then the macros will not convert
 to what they're supposed to look like.. they'll show up in ERT... is
 there a workaround to this? (I'm currently making sure that I open
 MathMacros.lyx before I open any of the other files..  hope there's
 some neater way of doing this).

What about a wrapper my_lyx:

#!/bin/sh
lyx MathMacros.lyx $1

Then my_lyx foo.lyx will load both files.

-- 
Jean-Pierre

Re: math-macro in preamble?

[Nirmal Govind]

Thanks Andre' and Jean-Pierre.. should I file an enhancement request 
on bugzilla?

I like the wrapper idea.. will use this for now..

nirmal

Re: math-macro in preamble?

[Jean-Pierre.Chretien]

>>> Problem is that if I open this lyx document alone (with no lyx files
>>> that use math-macros currently open), then the macros will not convert
>>> to what they're supposed to look like.. they'll show up in ERT... is
>>> there a workaround to this? (I'm currently making sure that I open
>>> MathMacros.lyx before I open any of the other files..  hope there's
>>> some neater way of doing this).

What about a wrapper my_lyx:

#!/bin/sh
lyx MathMacros.lyx $1

Then my_lyx foo.lyx will load both files.

-- 
Jean-Pierre

Re: math-macro in preamble?

[Nirmal Govind]

Thanks Andre' and Jean-Pierre.. should I file an enhancement request 
on bugzilla?

I like the wrapper idea.. will use this for now..

nirmal

Re: math-macro in preamble?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 04:38:38PM -0500, Nirmal Govind wrote:
 Hi.. is there a way to include math-macros anywhere else other than 
 in the main part of the lyx file?

Not really.

 Maybe in the preamble or so?

Not there for sure.

 I'm trying to have a global math-macros file that can be included in
 all my lyx files so that I only need to update one macros file.. I
 tried putting all the math-macros in a lyx file (MathMacros.lyx) and
 then did an Include File in the main lyx document that I'm editing.

I understand the desire, but currently the macro 'scope' logic is ...
aehm ... severly broken (and has been like that from day one)

 Problem is that if I open this lyx document alone (with no lyx files
 that use math-macros currently open), then the macros will not convert
 to what they're supposed to look like.. they'll show up in ERT... is
 there a workaround to this? (I'm currently making sure that I open
 MathMacros.lyx before I open any of the other files..  hope there's
 some neater way of doing this).

No(t yet), I am afraid.

Andre'

Re: math-macro in preamble?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 04:38:38PM -0500, Nirmal Govind wrote:
 Hi.. is there a way to include math-macros anywhere else other than 
 in the main part of the lyx file?

Not really.

 Maybe in the preamble or so?

Not there for sure.

 I'm trying to have a global math-macros file that can be included in
 all my lyx files so that I only need to update one macros file.. I
 tried putting all the math-macros in a lyx file (MathMacros.lyx) and
 then did an Include File in the main lyx document that I'm editing.

I understand the desire, but currently the macro 'scope' logic is ...
aehm ... severly broken (and has been like that from day one)

 Problem is that if I open this lyx document alone (with no lyx files
 that use math-macros currently open), then the macros will not convert
 to what they're supposed to look like.. they'll show up in ERT... is
 there a workaround to this? (I'm currently making sure that I open
 MathMacros.lyx before I open any of the other files..  hope there's
 some neater way of doing this).

No(t yet), I am afraid.

Andre'

Re: math-macro in preamble?

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 04:38:38PM -0500, Nirmal Govind wrote:
> Hi.. is there a way to include math-macros anywhere else other than 
> in the main part of the lyx file?

Not really.

> Maybe in the preamble or so?

Not there for sure.

> I'm trying to have a global math-macros file that can be included in
> all my lyx files so that I only need to update one macros file.. I
> tried putting all the math-macros in a lyx file (MathMacros.lyx) and
> then did an "Include File" in the main lyx document that I'm editing.

I understand the desire, but currently the macro 'scope' logic is ...
aehm ... severly broken (and has been like that from day one)

> Problem is that if I open this lyx document alone (with no lyx files
> that use math-macros currently open), then the macros will not convert
> to what they're supposed to look like.. they'll show up in ERT... is
> there a workaround to this? (I'm currently making sure that I open
> MathMacros.lyx before I open any of the other files..  hope there's
> some neater way of doing this).

No(t yet), I am afraid.

Andre'

Re: Math-macro

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:44:10PM +0100, Vaclav Smidl wrote:
 Hi,
 I am using lyx for some years now, but I started to use math-macros quite 
 recently. However, as far as I know it always inserts \newcommand even if the 
 macro already exist. Is there any switch to use \renewcommand instead?

No.

 I found, that ERT line:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED] \makeatother
 before a macro does the job of \renewcommand (copied from there, anyway).
 But it is quite dirty trick to my taste.
 
 Any idea wellcome,

Would   \let\newcommand\providecommand  in the preamble help?

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)

Re: Math-macro

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:44:10PM +0100, Vaclav Smidl wrote:
 Hi,
 I am using lyx for some years now, but I started to use math-macros quite 
 recently. However, as far as I know it always inserts \newcommand even if the 
 macro already exist. Is there any switch to use \renewcommand instead?

No.

 I found, that ERT line:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED] \makeatother
 before a macro does the job of \renewcommand (copied from there, anyway).
 But it is quite dirty trick to my taste.
 
 Any idea wellcome,

Would   \let\newcommand\providecommand  in the preamble help?

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)

Re: Math-macro

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:44:10PM +0100, Vaclav Smidl wrote:
> Hi,
> I am using lyx for some years now, but I started to use math-macros quite 
> recently. However, as far as I know it always inserts \newcommand even if the 
> macro already exist. Is there any switch to use \renewcommand instead?

No.

> I found, that ERT line:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED] \makeatother
> before a macro does the job of \renewcommand (copied from there, anyway).
> But it is quite dirty trick to my taste.
> 
> Any idea wellcome,

Would   \let\newcommand\providecommand  in the preamble help?

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)

Re: Math Macro with arguments

[Andre Poenitz]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:11:16PM +0200, Amir Seginer wrote:
> I couldn't figure how to use math-macro-arg

M-x math-macro-arg 2  is just a complicated way to say '#2' in a macro
definition.

> For example to create a macro \mysum for the sum, enter in the 
> mini-buffer (M-x to reach it)
> 
> math-macro mysum 2(no \ before "mysum")
> 
> Then at the box you get, simply enter a sum with subscript "#1" (without 
> the quatations) and a superscript "#2" i.e. enter
> 
> \sum_{#1}^{#2}

Even simpler is to type 

 \def\mysum#1#2{\sum_#1^#2}

or

 \newcommand{\mysum}[2]{\sum_#1^#2}

in ordinary text, select this text and press C-m to convert it to a math
macro.

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: Math Macro with arguments

[Amir Seginer]

Hello,

hugh a. duguid wrote:
I have reviewed the sections on Math Macros, 5.1, etc and still need 
help setting up a math macro with arguments.
Specifically, I'd like to have a summation with the upper and lower 
limits, as well as the argument of the summation empty so that they can 
be filled in as needed.
It appears that I do not understand the math-macro-arg number business.
I'm using lyx-1.2.1 on Mandrake 9.0
I couldn't figure how to use math-macro-arg either, but there is another 
way to do this.

For example to create a macro \mysum for the sum, enter in the 
mini-buffer (M-x to reach it)

math-macro mysum 2	(no \ before mysum)

Then at the box you get, simply enter a sum with subscript #1 (without 
the quatations) and a superscript #2 i.e. enter

\sum_{#1}^{#2}

now when you type \mysum in math mode Lyx will give you two boxes to 
write the limits in.

Hope this helps,

Amir

Re: Math Macro with arguments

[Amir Seginer]

Hello,

hugh a. duguid wrote:
I have reviewed the sections on Math Macros, 5.1, etc and still need 
help setting up a math macro with arguments.
Specifically, I'd like to have a summation with the upper and lower 
limits, as well as the argument of the summation empty so that they can 
be filled in as needed.
It appears that I do not understand the math-macro-arg number business.
I'm using lyx-1.2.1 on Mandrake 9.0
I couldn't figure how to use math-macro-arg either, but there is another 
way to do this.

For example to create a macro \mysum for the sum, enter in the 
mini-buffer (M-x to reach it)

math-macro mysum 2	(no \ before mysum)

Then at the box you get, simply enter a sum with subscript #1 (without 
the quatations) and a superscript #2 i.e. enter

\sum_{#1}^{#2}

now when you type \mysum in math mode Lyx will give you two boxes to 
write the limits in.

Hope this helps,

Amir

Re: Math Macro with arguments

[Amir Seginer]

Hello,

hugh a. duguid wrote:
I have reviewed the sections on Math Macros, 5.1, etc and still need 
help setting up a math macro with arguments.
Specifically, I'd like to have a summation with the upper and lower 
limits, as well as the argument of the summation empty so that they can 
be filled in as needed.
It appears that I do not understand the math-macro-arg  business.
I'm using lyx-1.2.1 on Mandrake 9.0
I couldn't figure how to use math-macro-arg either, but there is another 
way to do this.

For example to create a macro \mysum for the sum, enter in the 
mini-buffer (M-x to reach it)

math-macro mysum 2	(no \ before "mysum")

Then at the box you get, simply enter a sum with subscript "#1" (without 
the quatations) and a superscript "#2" i.e. enter

\sum_{#1}^{#2}

now when you type \mysum in math mode Lyx will give you two boxes to 
write the limits in.

Hope this helps,

Amir

Re: Re: math-macro scope

[Andre Poenitz]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:53:35AM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
 For the first problem, the learnign should be constrained to the active
 buffer. (Well, I have too less insight into the LyX source (i.e. None) to
 know how to implement this).

I think I won't touch this for 1.2 anymore.

 For the second problem (definitions in included files), my proposal (which
 is rather a nice workaround than a direct solution) would be a new enhanced
 Latex-Preamble dialog, which is a feature request on its own: 
 
Could we have the LaTeX preamble dialog using a normal LyX-document
window with all the nice features? This would
  a) make the editing of the preamble a lot easier 
 (at least on my KDE, the present dialog behaves odd (different
 keybindings, DEL does Backspace ...)
  b) allow the definition of a math-macro in the preamble and thus keep
 the main document clean (and eliminate the need for a included file
 of math-macros).

This would be nice indeed.

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: Re: math-macro scope

[Andre Poenitz]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:53:35AM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
 For the first problem, the learnign should be constrained to the active
 buffer. (Well, I have too less insight into the LyX source (i.e. None) to
 know how to implement this).

I think I won't touch this for 1.2 anymore.

 For the second problem (definitions in included files), my proposal (which
 is rather a nice workaround than a direct solution) would be a new enhanced
 Latex-Preamble dialog, which is a feature request on its own: 
 
Could we have the LaTeX preamble dialog using a normal LyX-document
window with all the nice features? This would
  a) make the editing of the preamble a lot easier 
 (at least on my KDE, the present dialog behaves odd (different
 keybindings, DEL does Backspace ...)
  b) allow the definition of a math-macro in the preamble and thus keep
 the main document clean (and eliminate the need for a included file
 of math-macros).

This would be nice indeed.

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: Re: math-macro scope

[Andre Poenitz]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:53:35AM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
> For the first problem, the "learnign" should be constrained to the active
> buffer. (Well, I have too less insight into the LyX source (i.e. None) to
> know how to implement this).

I think I won't touch this for 1.2 anymore.

> For the second problem (definitions in included files), my proposal (which
> is rather a nice workaround than a direct solution) would be a new enhanced
> Latex-Preamble dialog, which is a feature request on its own: 
> 
>Could we have the LaTeX preamble dialog using a normal LyX-document
>window with all the nice features? This would
>  a) make the editing of the preamble a lot easier 
> (at least on my KDE, the present dialog behaves odd (different
> keybindings, DEL does Backspace ...)
>  b) allow the definition of a math-macro in the preamble and thus keep
> the main document clean (and eliminate the need for a included file
> of math-macros).

This would be nice indeed.

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: math-macro scope

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:00:31PM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
 When defining a math-macro in a document, LyX uses this definition for all
 other open documents as well (whether the macro is defined there or not)

I know this. The current definition mechanisn isplainly wrong.

 OTOH, when I put the math-macros in a separate file (as the definition part
 is not really What I Mean, so I don't want to see it) and include this file,
 no expansion takes place.

LyX 'learns' the macros, when a .lyx file containg them is actually read
in. 
 
 Is this a known issue? (Did not find a relevant bug in the bugtracker)

Sort of. Yes. No easy workaround in sight, though..

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: Re: math-macro scope

[Guenter Milde]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:03:20 +0200 wrote Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:00:31PM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
  When defining a math-macro in a document, LyX uses this definition for all
  other open documents as well (whether the macro is defined there or not)
 
 I know this. The current definition mechanisn isplainly wrong.
 
  OTOH, when I put the math-macros in a separate file (as the definition part
  is not really What I Mean, so I don't want to see it) and include this file,
  no expansion takes place.
 
 LyX 'learns' the macros, when a .lyx file containg them is actually read
 in. 
  
  Is this a known issue? (Did not find a relevant bug in the bugtracker)
 
 Sort of. Yes. No easy workaround in sight, though..

For the first problem, the learnign should be constrained to the active
buffer. (Well, I have too less insight into the LyX source (i.e. None) to
know how to implement this).

For the second problem (definitions in included files), my proposal (which
is rather a nice workaround than a direct solution) would be a new enhanced
Latex-Preamble dialog, which is a feature request on its own: 

   Could we have the LaTeX preamble dialog using a normal LyX-document
   window with all the nice features? This would
 a) make the editing of the preamble a lot easier 
(at least on my KDE, the present dialog behaves odd (different
keybindings, DEL does Backspace ...)
 b) allow the definition of a math-macro in the preamble and thus keep
the main document clean (and eliminate the need for a included file
of math-macros).

Guenter

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: math-macro scope

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:00:31PM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
 When defining a math-macro in a document, LyX uses this definition for all
 other open documents as well (whether the macro is defined there or not)

I know this. The current definition mechanisn isplainly wrong.

 OTOH, when I put the math-macros in a separate file (as the definition part
 is not really What I Mean, so I don't want to see it) and include this file,
 no expansion takes place.

LyX 'learns' the macros, when a .lyx file containg them is actually read
in. 
 
 Is this a known issue? (Did not find a relevant bug in the bugtracker)

Sort of. Yes. No easy workaround in sight, though..

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: Re: math-macro scope

[Guenter Milde]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:03:20 +0200 wrote Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:00:31PM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
  When defining a math-macro in a document, LyX uses this definition for all
  other open documents as well (whether the macro is defined there or not)
 
 I know this. The current definition mechanisn isplainly wrong.
 
  OTOH, when I put the math-macros in a separate file (as the definition part
  is not really What I Mean, so I don't want to see it) and include this file,
  no expansion takes place.
 
 LyX 'learns' the macros, when a .lyx file containg them is actually read
 in. 
  
  Is this a known issue? (Did not find a relevant bug in the bugtracker)
 
 Sort of. Yes. No easy workaround in sight, though..

For the first problem, the learnign should be constrained to the active
buffer. (Well, I have too less insight into the LyX source (i.e. None) to
know how to implement this).

For the second problem (definitions in included files), my proposal (which
is rather a nice workaround than a direct solution) would be a new enhanced
Latex-Preamble dialog, which is a feature request on its own: 

   Could we have the LaTeX preamble dialog using a normal LyX-document
   window with all the nice features? This would
 a) make the editing of the preamble a lot easier 
(at least on my KDE, the present dialog behaves odd (different
keybindings, DEL does Backspace ...)
 b) allow the definition of a math-macro in the preamble and thus keep
the main document clean (and eliminate the need for a included file
of math-macros).

Guenter

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: math-macro scope

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:00:31PM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
> When defining a math-macro in a document, LyX uses this definition for all
> other open documents as well (whether the macro is defined there or not)

I know this. The current definition mechanisn isplainly wrong.

> OTOH, when I put the math-macros in a separate file (as the definition part
> is not really What I Mean, so I don't want to see it) and include this file,
> no expansion takes place.

LyX 'learns' the macros, when a .lyx file containg them is actually read
in. 
 
> Is this a known issue? (Did not find a relevant bug in the bugtracker)

Sort of. Yes. No easy workaround in sight, though..

Andre'

-- 
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)

Re: Re: math-macro scope

[Guenter Milde]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:03:20 +0200 wrote Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:00:31PM +0200, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > When defining a math-macro in a document, LyX uses this definition for all
> > other open documents as well (whether the macro is defined there or not)
> 
> I know this. The current definition mechanisn isplainly wrong.
> 
> > OTOH, when I put the math-macros in a separate file (as the definition part
> > is not really What I Mean, so I don't want to see it) and include this file,
> > no expansion takes place.
> 
> LyX 'learns' the macros, when a .lyx file containg them is actually read
> in. 
>  
> > Is this a known issue? (Did not find a relevant bug in the bugtracker)
> 
> Sort of. Yes. No easy workaround in sight, though..

For the first problem, the "learnign" should be constrained to the active
buffer. (Well, I have too less insight into the LyX source (i.e. None) to
know how to implement this).

For the second problem (definitions in included files), my proposal (which
is rather a nice workaround than a direct solution) would be a new enhanced
Latex-Preamble dialog, which is a feature request on its own: 

   Could we have the LaTeX preamble dialog using a normal LyX-document
   window with all the nice features? This would
 a) make the editing of the preamble a lot easier 
(at least on my KDE, the present dialog behaves odd (different
keybindings, DEL does Backspace ...)
 b) allow the definition of a math-macro in the preamble and thus keep
the main document clean (and eliminate the need for a included file
of math-macros).

Guenter

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]