Hopefully in the future we will have an embedded scripting language in LyX
and features like this one will be implementable with it. This will
satisfy the feature-bloat proponents and the feature-bloat opponents, you
will be able to use such features if you want and you will be able to
disable the scripting language altogether if you dont want any of this.
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Joao B. Oliveira wrote:
> >
> > > If you have the data from some other application which allows
> > > formatted printing, conditional predicates and sorting functions, this
> > > kind of problem is readily solved by printing in a file the
> > > latex or lyx code and the data as you want it
> > > and inputting it in the document. It may be worth to write
> > > a short piece of code in your favourite tool to do it.
> >
> > Definitely something to add to the 2.0 wishlist! If LyX is going to be a
> > working tool for the average user, rather than just a convenient LaTeX
> > front-end for 'nix hackers, little features like sortable lists will make a
> > lot of difference. I'm not advocating feature-bloat (if I want that, I can
> > download Star Office!) just a few bits and bobs to make life easier.
>
> Isn't that a bit of overkill? I mean, it *is* something of a
> feature-bloating to me... it can be done more or less easily:
>
> 1) with the *nix tools that everybody should know about (to live
> a happier life under the Church of the True Light of Unix)
>
> 2) with some other tool like Gnumeric or StarOffice or whatever...
>
> As an "average" user, I do not like the idea of having such a
> feature cluttering menus and being used three times on a lifetime...
>
> > (BTW, my dirty solution to the ordered table thing is to use a Gnumeric
> > spreadsheet then import it as EPS.)
>
> See? Does not look that bad, but an even better solution would be
> *other* feature: import .cvs files directly as tables. This seems a
> better solution, as data are produced in your favorite spreadsheet,
> exported as cvs and imported in LyX as tables.
>
> This seems more reasonable (as a feature), but I have to admit that I
> am against it for the same reasons as before... :-)
>
> j. b.
>
>
>
>
