Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 12:49:25PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | Roll on André's TeX parser. Perhaps Boost.Spirit might be a way to go? Spirit is a parser framework written in C++. Does it need fixed keywords or does it allow on-the-fly changes? I pretty much doubt anything else than a TeX-Parser will accept \catcode`x=10 funnyxstuffxisn'txit? let alone some parser framework. Even if it is from boost. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: bug 9 revisisted
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 12:49:25PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | | Roll on André's TeX parser. | | Perhaps Boost.Spirit might be a way to go? | Spirit is a parser framework written in C++. | | Does it need fixed keywords or does it allow on-the-fly changes? | I pretty much doubt anything else than a TeX-Parser will accept | | \catcode`x=10 | funnyxstuffxisn'txit? | | let alone some parser framework. Even if it is from boost. I have no idea why we should support stuff like that anyway... -- Lgb
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:50:58AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | let alone some parser framework. Even if it is from boost. I have no idea why we should support stuff like that anyway... Because it is used in many disguises in regular .tex and it is not too hard to get more or less right with what we currently use as a parser. At least the definition of active characters should be possible. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: bug 9 revisisted
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:50:58AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | | let alone some parser framework. Even if it is from boost. | | I have no idea why we should support stuff like that anyway... | | Because it is used in many disguises in regular .tex and it is not too hard | to get more or less right with what we currently use as a parser. | | At least the definition of active characters should be possible. Regular tex or regular latex? IMHO if we are going to support this it should be by an external tool like reLyX. -- Lgb
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:30:30PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: IMHO if we are going to support this it should be by an external tool like reLyX. We were talking about a stand-alone .tex-.lyx converter basing on the current math parser code. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:30:30PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | At least the definition of active characters should be possible. Regular tex or regular latex? Both. ~ is active for starters... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 12:49:25PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | Roll on André's TeX parser. > > Perhaps Boost.Spirit might be a way to go? > Spirit is a parser framework written in C++. Does it need fixed keywords or does it allow on-the-fly changes? I pretty much doubt anything else than a TeX-Parser will accept \catcode`x=10 funnyxstuffxisn'txit? let alone some parser framework. Even if it is from boost. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: bug 9 revisisted
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 12:49:25PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > | Roll on André's TeX parser. | > | > Perhaps Boost.Spirit might be a way to go? | > Spirit is a parser framework written in C++. | | Does it need fixed keywords or does it allow on-the-fly changes? | I pretty much doubt anything else than a TeX-Parser will accept | | \catcode`x=10 | funnyxstuffxisn'txit? | | let alone some parser framework. Even if it is from boost. I have no idea why we should support stuff like that anyway... -- Lgb
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:50:58AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | let alone some parser framework. Even if it is from boost. > > I have no idea why we should support stuff like that anyway... Because it is used in many disguises in regular .tex and it is not too hard to get more or less right with what we currently use as a parser. At least the definition of active characters should be possible. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: bug 9 revisisted
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:50:58AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > | let alone some parser framework. Even if it is from boost. | > | > I have no idea why we should support stuff like that anyway... | | Because it is used in many disguises in regular .tex and it is not too hard | to get more or less right with what we currently use as a parser. | | At least the definition of active characters should be possible. Regular tex or regular latex? IMHO if we are going to support this it should be by an external tool like reLyX. -- Lgb
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:30:30PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > IMHO if we are going to support this it should be by an external tool > like reLyX. We were talking about a stand-alone .tex->.lyx converter basing on the current math parser code. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:30:30PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | At least the definition of active characters should be possible. > > Regular tex or regular latex? Both. ~ is active for starters... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: bug 9 revisisted
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Sunday 02 February 2003 1:41 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | I've reopened the bug and put the patch and test case there but still | | think that this should be applied to 1.3. | | Then test test test... you still have some days before 1.3.0 go out | the door. | | We should create some testsuite kind of thing for this stuff. | | I'd quite like to learn enough perl to say I don't like it. Seems to me that a | reasonable first step is to upgrade reLyX so that it outputs stuff in the | current format. Thereafter, adding support for missing stuff like minipages | has at least a chance of being coherent. | | Roll on André's TeX parser. Perhaps Boost.Spirit might be a way to go? Spirit is a parser framework written in C++. -- Lgb
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Sunday 02 February 2003 11:49 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Sunday 02 February 2003 1:41 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | I've reopened the bug and put the patch and test case there but still | | think that this should be applied to 1.3. | | Then test test test... you still have some days before 1.3.0 go out | the door. | | We should create some testsuite kind of thing for this stuff. | | I'd quite like to learn enough perl to say I don't like it. Seems to me | that a reasonable first step is to upgrade reLyX so that it outputs stuff | in the current format. Thereafter, adding support for missing stuff like | minipages has at least a chance of being coherent. | | Roll on André's TeX parser. Perhaps Boost.Spirit might be a way to go? Spirit is a parser framework written in C++. Interesting. I envisage the following step-by-step framework for our handling of LaTeX: 1. Do not add any new functionality to reLyX but get it to output stuff in the current lyxformat not lyxformat 215. 2. Add support to reLyX for stuff that LyX can now handle natively. Things like minipages. At this point reLyX is fully working again. 3. reLyX has already been modified to pass math unchanged because André's math parser can make sense of this subset of LaTeX. In other words, reLyX handling of math has been 'retired'. 4. As André's insets take over the world, then more and more LaTeX can be passed through reLyX unchanged because his parser will be able to deal with it. Gradually reLyX shrinks away to nothing as the 'math parser' evolves into a 'LaTeX parser' 5. If we want to re-design the math parser using Boost::Spirit then that fits into this framework too. Angus
Re: bug 9 revisisted
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sunday 02 February 2003 1:41 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | > Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | I've reopened the bug and put the patch and test case there but still | > | think that this should be applied to 1.3. | > | > Then test test test... you still have some days before 1.3.0 go out | > the door. | > | > We should create some testsuite kind of thing for this stuff. | | I'd quite like to learn enough perl to say I don't like it. Seems to me that a | reasonable first step is to upgrade reLyX so that it outputs stuff in the | current format. Thereafter, adding support for missing stuff like minipages | has at least a chance of being coherent. | | Roll on André's TeX parser. Perhaps Boost.Spirit might be a way to go? Spirit is a parser framework written in C++. -- Lgb
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Sunday 02 February 2003 11:49 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | On Sunday 02 February 2003 1:41 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | > Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > | I've reopened the bug and put the patch and test case there but still > | > | think that this should be applied to 1.3. > | > > | > Then test test test... you still have some days before 1.3.0 go out > | > the door. > | > > | > We should create some testsuite kind of thing for this stuff. > | > | I'd quite like to learn enough perl to say I don't like it. Seems to me > | that a reasonable first step is to upgrade reLyX so that it outputs stuff > | in the current format. Thereafter, adding support for missing stuff like > | minipages has at least a chance of being coherent. > | > | Roll on André's TeX parser. > > Perhaps Boost.Spirit might be a way to go? > > Spirit is a parser framework written in C++. Interesting. I envisage the following step-by-step framework for our handling of LaTeX: 1. Do not add any new functionality to reLyX but get it to output stuff in the current lyxformat not lyxformat 215. 2. Add support to reLyX for stuff that LyX can now handle natively. Things like minipages. At this point reLyX is fully working again. 3. reLyX has already been modified to pass math unchanged because André's math parser can make sense of this subset of LaTeX. In other words, reLyX handling of math has been 'retired'. 4. As André's insets take over the world, then more and more LaTeX can be passed through reLyX unchanged because his parser will be able to deal with it. Gradually reLyX shrinks away to nothing as the 'math parser' evolves into a 'LaTeX parser' 5. If we want to re-design the math parser using Boost::Spirit then that fits into this framework too. Angus
Re: bug 9 revisisted
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I've reopened the bug and put the patch and test case there but still think | that this should be applied to 1.3. Then test test test... you still have some days before 1.3.0 go out the door. We should create some testsuite kind of thing for this stuff. -- Lgb
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Sunday 02 February 2003 1:41 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I've reopened the bug and put the patch and test case there but still | think that this should be applied to 1.3. Then test test test... you still have some days before 1.3.0 go out the door. We should create some testsuite kind of thing for this stuff. I'd quite like to learn enough perl to say I don't like it. Seems to me that a reasonable first step is to upgrade reLyX so that it outputs stuff in the current format. Thereafter, adding support for missing stuff like minipages has at least a chance of being coherent. Roll on André's TeX parser. Angus
Re: bug 9 revisisted
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I've reopened the bug and put the patch and test case there but still think | that this should be applied to 1.3. Then test test test... you still have some days before 1.3.0 go out the door. We should create some testsuite kind of thing for this stuff. -- Lgb
Re: bug 9 revisisted
On Sunday 02 February 2003 1:41 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | I've reopened the bug and put the patch and test case there but still > | think that this should be applied to 1.3. > > Then test test test... you still have some days before 1.3.0 go out > the door. > > We should create some testsuite kind of thing for this stuff. I'd quite like to learn enough perl to say I don't like it. Seems to me that a reasonable first step is to upgrade reLyX so that it outputs stuff in the current format. Thereafter, adding support for missing stuff like minipages has at least a chance of being coherent. Roll on André's TeX parser. Angus
Re: Bug #9
If this feature is not needed any longer, I propose alternative 1. Alt 2 could be implemented as well for backward-compatibility (if this is really necessary; the question is whether there are any users with selfmade layout files that are not member of this mailing list) Well me too would do both, at least we would have to output a correct error on this for backward compatibility and for users with their own layout files, so that they know what's going on and what they have to change. Something like: Font LaTeX is Obsolet now, please remove the tag from the Layout file Jürgen -- -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen VignaE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel/Fax: +39-0471-450260 / +39-0471-450253 I-39100 Bozen Web: http://www.sad.it/~jug -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ I'm not under the alkafluence of inkahol that some thinkle peep I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get.
Re: Bug #9
> If this feature is not needed any longer, I propose alternative 1. Alt 2 > could be implemented as well for backward-compatibility (if this is really > necessary; the question is whether there are any users with selfmade > layout files that are not member of this mailing list) Well me too would do both, at least we would have to output a correct error on this for backward compatibility and for users with their own layout files, so that they know what's going on and what they have to change. Something like: "Font LaTeX is Obsolet now, please remove the tag from the Layout file" Jürgen -- -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen VignaE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel/Fax: +39-0471-450260 / +39-0471-450253 I-39100 Bozen Web: http://www.sad.it/~jug -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ I'm not under the alkafluence of inkahol that some thinkle peep I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get.
Re: Bug #9
Michael Schmitt wrote: when opening template letter.sty (among other), I get some strange console messages: i suppose it's letter.lyx ... ;-) LyX: Unknown tag `Latex' [around line 77 of file ~/Programme/lyx-1.2.0cvs-sol/share/lyx/layouts/stdletter.inc] LyX: Unknown layout tag `Latex' [around line 78 of file ~/Programme/lyx-1.2.0cvs-sol/share/lyx/layouts/stdletter.inc] as the message said the problem is in stdletter.inc all paragraph-layouts with LabelFont Series Bold Shape Italic Latex Latex EndFont are not correctly translated into the new 1.2.0 layout, means the line Latex Latex is not correct ignored! all layouts behind the first one with this font definition are missing. so there are two ways: 1. revise all layout-files in layouts/* 2. let lyx ignore sich lines, when opening the layout Herbert -- http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/lyx/
Re: Bug #9
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Herbert Voss wrote: Michael Schmitt wrote: when opening template letter.sty (among other), I get some strange console messages: i suppose it's letter.lyx ... ;-) Of course. I typical case of rapid bug reporting :-) Latex Latex is not correct ignored! all layouts behind the first one with this font definition are missing. so there are two ways: 1. revise all layout-files in layouts/* 2. let lyx ignore sich lines, when opening the layout If this feature is not needed any longer, I propose alternative 1. Alt 2 could be implemented as well for backward-compatibility (if this is really necessary; the question is whether there are any users with selfmade layout files that are not member of this mailing list) Michael -- == Michael Schmittphone: +49 451 500 3725 Institute for Telematics secretary: +49 451 500 3721 Medical University of Luebeck fax: +49 451 500 3722 Ratzeburger Allee 160 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] D-23538 Luebeck, Germany WWW: http://www.itm.mu-luebeck.de ==
Re: Bug #9
Michael Schmitt wrote: > > when opening template "letter.sty" (among other), I get some strange > console messages: i suppose it's letter.lyx ... ;-) > > LyX: Unknown tag `Latex' [around line 77 of file > ~/Programme/lyx-1.2.0cvs-sol/share/lyx/layouts/stdletter.inc] > LyX: Unknown layout tag `Latex' [around line 78 of file > ~/Programme/lyx-1.2.0cvs-sol/share/lyx/layouts/stdletter.inc] as the message said the problem is in stdletter.inc all paragraph-layouts with LabelFont Series Bold Shape Italic Latex Latex EndFont are not correctly translated into the new 1.2.0 layout, means the line Latex Latex is not correct ignored! all layouts behind the first one with this font definition are missing. so there are two ways: 1. revise all layout-files in layouts/* 2. let lyx ignore sich lines, when opening the layout Herbert -- http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/lyx/
Re: Bug #9
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Herbert Voss wrote: > Michael Schmitt wrote: > > > > when opening template "letter.sty" (among other), I get some strange > > console messages: > > i suppose it's letter.lyx ... ;-) Of course. I typical case of rapid bug reporting :-) > Latex Latex > > is not correct ignored! all layouts behind the first one with > this font definition are missing. > > so there are two ways: > 1. revise all layout-files in layouts/* > 2. let lyx ignore sich lines, when opening the layout If this feature is not needed any longer, I propose alternative 1. Alt 2 could be implemented as well for backward-compatibility (if this is really necessary; the question is whether there are any users with selfmade layout files that are not member of this mailing list) Michael -- == Michael Schmittphone: +49 451 500 3725 Institute for Telematics secretary: +49 451 500 3721 Medical University of Luebeck fax: +49 451 500 3722 Ratzeburger Allee 160 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] D-23538 Luebeck, Germany WWW: http://www.itm.mu-luebeck.de ==
