On 04/11/2017 04:20 PM, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2017-04-11, PhilipPirrip wrote: >> On 04/11/2017 11:23 AM, Stephan Witt wrote: >> My proposal of having "a general sheet where one could send options to >> (the calls of) this and that package would be a good way to go - that >> means, not by just using \SendOptionsToPackage" will be a freestyle >> sheet, where one would have a text input field for the package name, and >> a text input field for all the options that need to be passed to it. >> packageA: optionA1, optionA2=false, optionA3 >> packageB: optionB1 >> packageC: optionC1=whatever >> etc > We already have a "general sheet for package options", it's called > "latex preamble" and uses a syntax that is > > * more versatile, and > * better documented > > than any home-brew alternative (it's LaTeX). > > Options that need to be known to LyX internally need special input (e.g. > the input encoding and the font encoding or lenght that are taken into > account in the GUI). > > Another reason for special dialogue elements is the task to provide a > consistent interface to alternative packages or commonly required > features > > However, if there is no added value in a LyX-specific interface, it's > better to keep the "advanced" and "exotic" settings for the user > preamble. Then, users can drag-and-drop LaTeX solutions from > stackexchange, say.
I haven't followed this all that closely, but the one reason to have a special "options" field like this is that one sometimes runs into the problem that, if you put stuff in the preamble, it loads too late. Is that an issue here or not? Richard
