Uwe Stöhr wrote: > That's why I wrote in 90%. Usually you have single line space and nearly > all document classes use 1.2 for the baselineskip then.
I don't know where you have that stats from. Anyway, reverting a dynamic value to a fixed one is the wrong way IMHO. > >> > Why don't you revert to ERT and keep the \baselineskip value? > >> > >> This is impossible since you can use baselineskip in all insets and > >> settings with a length combo. Take for example the attached LyX file. > > > > Of course it is possible, You need to scan for the baselineskip value > and do > the appropriate conversion. > > But all insets have different syntax. That would mean that I have to write > a detection routine foe every inst. E.g. when I find baselineskip in a > box I need to revert the whole box as TeX-code. This is a horror. I think this can be done. We have reversion routines for many insets at hand, so it's just a matter of effort. Anyway, if you're too lazy to do this, I opt for limiting \baselineskip to vspace only (and maybe add other access points later). I prefer having limited support over having a sloppy reversion. > What I can do is to check also for the set line spacing. baselineskip is > then > > baselineskip = fontsize * 1.2 * line spacing > > This is then correct for far over 90% of all cases. Again, no idea how you came to this statistics. > > Anyway, I think \baselineskip should not be > > > > offered everywhere. I think it only makes sense in vertical dimensions. > > I think the user should decides where he want to use this length. If he for > some some strange reason prefers to have an image with a width of > 4\baselineskip, why should we forbid this? Because it's utter nonsense. Jürgen
