Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Reading the patch, this seems a bit convoluted, but I guess that it > works :) What I do not like is that the syntax $$s/script_name does > not look like any syntax I know :) What about using something like > $$script(script-name) (I think we have anlready a $$contents() thing > in external inset).
Yes, we have different naming strategies that have been adopted by the external inset code and by the converters code. The former uses "nice" names like $$contents, $$basename whilst the latter uses stuff like $$i, $$o, $$b. I chose to name it $$s because this symbol is used only by the converters (now that the external inset uses the converters to do the conversion --- in my tree at least). I am quite happy to change to the external inset style but it should be done consistently and will break any user-defined converter. I suspect that there are more converters than user-defined external templates... -- Angus
