[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lyx-devel
Subject:    Re: More about tex2lyx and roundtrip
From:       rgheck <rgheck () bobjweil ! com>
Date:       2009-06-26 20:02:30
Message-ID: 4A452956.10500 () bobjweil ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> rgheck <rgheck@bobjweil.com> writes:
> 
> > Yes, I have been following it, distantly, and am in effect endorsing
> > the old solution, plus some additional granularity. Your worries about
> > the new attempt seem to me reasonable ones.
> > 
> 
> I'll let Uwe decide on what he wants to do.
> 
> Nevertheless, concerning what you propose, I think it is not really the
> way it should be redone: what it did was output human-readable comments
> and have tex2lyx parse them.
> 
> I would propose to reverse the logic and have LyX output coments that
> follow a tex2lyx specific syntax, like for example:
> 
> % [t2l:class=foo] use textclass foo 
> 
> This is useful when it is not the same as in \documentclass, or for tex
> fragments. 
> 
> % [t2l:modules=foo, bar] list of modules used by this file
> 
> % [t2l:keepall] in the following lines, all macros are kept in preamble
> 
> % [t2l:keepunknown] in the following lines, only macros that has not been \
> recognized by tex2lyx are kept 
> % [t2l:keepnone] none of the preamble lines below are kept
> 
> We could have extra directives that tell what insets are used, for
> example. And a document setting allowing not to output these tags.
> 
> The advantage of this approach is that we can document what we do, and
> that these tags are accessible also to people who want to generate latex
> code and import it in LyX.
> 
> 
All of this seems reasonable to me. Perhaps another advantage is that 
these LOOK like special tags, and so perhaps people will be less 
inclined to mess with them.

rh


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]