Sorry if I was opaque.
On 29/04/17 03:07, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 04/28/2017 05:05 AM, F M Salter wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I am enclosing a small LyX file which produces bizarre results!
>>
>> Here is a quick summary of how this file came about.
>>
>> I reported on the users list that the markups had suddenly
>> disappeared from the output. I did not find any resolution to this
>> problem. With the release of 2.3 alpha 1, and a new need to refer
>> frequently to the annotations I had made so as to produce a critique on
>> a significant paper, I decided to see if the new version resolved the
>> problem. It did not. Having previously given up on a bisection of the
>> paper (it contained very many interlocking references), I hit on a
>> piecemeal copying strategy, by simply starting with one tiny fragment
>> containing a single markup and adding tiny pieces until the markups
>> disappeared. This never happened. If I remember correctly a copy of
>> the whole document failed to correct the problem. I now had two
>> apparently identical LyX documents (according to LyX editing) which
>> produced different outputs! Comparing the pdflatex tex output showed a
>> difference between the markup output of the two items in the comparison
>> file which I had copied from the original files --- NOT the best thought
>> through tactic --- but it produced even more unexpected results!
> I cannot compile this. Is that the problem, or is there supposed to be
> some other problem?
It does compile sufficiently to produce a pdf output file.
Accepting that the LyX editor appears to accept --- though possibly
gagging on this file --- it was produced by LyX editing and copying!
This might suggest there are frailties in the process, particularly
in copying members of a complex inheritance tree. I shudder to think of
my trying to produce a valid inheritance tree to make the copying
process foolproof. The programmers must be congratulated on the
capabilities they continue demonstrate. However, this raises a number
of questions.
1. Is this a demonstration of a flawed copying procedure?
2, or of something else?
I was able to compile the document, though it produced many error
messages. The "show output" button produces the pdf output which is
attached. It demonstrates disparate features, wrong colours and extents
of annotation!
I think this may well be a combination of a number of problems
coming together at once. I wish whoever looks at this, the very best of
luck as well as of judgement. The initial problem is not new to the 2.3
code, it was present in previous versions, as the non-annotating history
attests.
Regards
Frank Salter
> Richard
>
comparison.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
