Darren Dale wrote:
[...]
>
> How about markup="TeX" then?
"markup" is a good kwarg for this; it is descriptive and won't be
confused with anything else.
Eric
>
>> And yes, having a rcoption default seems like it could be handy.
>
---
On Thursday 02 August 2007 11:03:09 am Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Darren Dale wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 August 2007 10:42:17 am John Hunter wrote:
> >> On 8/2/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
> >>> vs. reg
Hi,
I wonder if there is any example to copy a line belong to one figure
to another figure?
Thanks
Xuedong
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Sea
Darren Dale wrote:
> On Thursday 02 August 2007 10:42:17 am John Hunter wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
>>> vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
>
On Thursday 02 August 2007 10:42:17 am John Hunter wrote:
> On 8/2/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
> > vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
> > using a new kw argument (probabl
On 8/2/07, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
> vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
> using a new kw argument (probably format="math" to be most future-proof)
> or Math('string'). I d
I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
using a new kw argument (probably format="math" to be most future-proof)
or Math('string'). I don't think I have enough "historical perspective"
to really m
