Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I could be wrong, but I don't see the benefit of doing the oldLyX to
| newLyX transformation using lyx2lyx. Why not just read the oldLyX file
| using the existing routines and then write the new one using the new
| routines? True, you have to keep the old routines in the code, so
| there is that, and if the XML format is as close to the old LyX format
| as it seems it might be, the lyx2lyx might be trivial. But if it's
| not, then it seems we already have what we need.
this is what we used to do... it quickly become very cumbersome to
drag that code around. esp. when the format evolves further then you
either get really spagetti code trying to handle several different
formats or you get huge amounts of duplicated code, or you have to say
that this version of lyx only support formats 1,2,3... then lyx2lyx
was created and life became a lot easier.
Yes, I understand that. I guess my thought was that this
read-using-the-old would only be used to read whatever the last oldLyX
format was, rather than trying to use lyx2lyx to translate the old
format to the new one. lyx2lyx would still have to be used to translate
old format n to old format m, and to translate between new formats. But
the old->new translation would be handled differently.
I just offer it as an idea. Whether it's useful will depend upon how
hard it is to write lyx2lyx to do the old->new translation.
Richard
--
==================================================================
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==================================================================
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
