Am 28.10.2011 09:36, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
You are right, that it is not in every case the exact value, but in, lets
say, 90%. I think that the impossibility to get for all 100% the exact
value should not prevent us from supporting \baselineskip.
"90%" or "80%" or whatever is not the point. The point is that this is
conceptually a different thing. Turning a relative value into an absolute is
just not appropriate.
This is true.
But as you already said, getting the exact value is not always accessible.
Not the value. Just look if baselineskip is used, and if so, use ERT instead
of a LyX inset.
OK, this should be possible.
> Anyway, I think \baselineskip should not be
> offered everywhere. I think it only makes sense in vertical dimensions.
LaTeX allows this, so why should we don't support it. Maybe the user later
on rotates some stuff in a box or so. Furthermore we already support sizes
like "column width%" also for vertical dimensions, see the vspace inset.
Following your argumentation, we should also not offer these there, but we
do.
We should not support all sorts of exotics (natively) just because "it's
possible" and because there might be some corner case.
I don't agree with you here. It is still the user's choice what to use. If there is some reason to
use an exotic, but valid construct, we should not force him to use TeX code.
A definition of what is exotic and what not is impossible. Take for example the unit "cc". This is a
valid unit and you can create with it horizontal as well as vertical space. But tell me one LyX user
who actually uses this unit. I don't know anybody. So I could say this is an exotic unit, so lets
better not support it. The same is in my opinion for \baselineskip.
regards Uwe
