RE: layout question

[leuven edwin]

jean-marc wrote:
 Currently, listings reuses ERT (?) to handle spaces. We could of course
 decide to have a new parameter to alloz multiple normal space. Even
 better, we could use \obeyspaces in LyX-Code to make normal spaces
 work like ~. This would solve many problems IMO (but create interesting
 new ones probably).

somehow this seems related to literate programming support (which i know 
nothing about). there one also wants the spaces and drop the extra newline (the 
document suggests the work around of using a hard return)

ed.

RE: layout question

[leuven edwin]

jean-marc wrote:
> Currently, listings reuses ERT (?) to handle spaces. We could of course
> decide to have a new parameter to alloz multiple normal space. Even
> better, we could use \obeyspaces in LyX-Code to make normal spaces
> work like ~. This would solve many problems IMO (but create interesting
> new ones probably).

somehow this seems related to literate programming support (which i know 
nothing about). there one also wants the spaces and drop the extra newline (the 
document suggests the work around of using a hard return)

ed.

Re: layout question

[rgheck]

leuven edwin wrote:

i am fiddling with a layout i'm trying to put together

i want to define an environment that contains plain text.

i have the following

Style Stata-Log
LatexType Environment
LatexName stlog
FreeSpacing   true
KeepEmpty true
Font
  Family  Typewriter
  Color   latex
  SizeSmall
EndFont
End

which almost does the trick with the following exceptions

1. spaces are transformed to ~
2. after every line (i.e. paragraph) an extra line break is inserted

  
I think these are connected with FreeSpacing. (1) certainly is, since ~ 
is the only way to preserve multiple spaces in LaTeX. I'm not sure about 
(2).


rh

RE: layout question

[leuven edwin]

richard wrote:
  ~ is the only way to preserve multiple spaces in LaTeX.

i don't think so, it depends on the environment. listings for example preserves 
multiple spaces.

what i am after is listings type behavior, but using Style instead of 
InsetLayout and for that i don't want the ~ nor the extra return

ed.

Re: layout question

[rgheck]

leuven edwin wrote:

richard wrote:
  

 ~ is the only way to preserve multiple spaces in LaTeX.



i don't think so, it depends on the environment. listings for example preserves 
multiple spaces.

  

I see.


what i am after is listings type behavior, but using Style instead of 
InsetLayout and for that i don't want the ~ nor the extra return

  
At the moment, I'm not sure we can do that in a normal environment 
(i.e., not in an inset). But there's no reason we couldn't.


rh

Re: layout question

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

rgheck rgh...@bobjweil.com writes:
 At the moment, I'm not sure we can do that in a normal environment
 (i.e., not in an inset). But there's no reason we couldn't.

Currently, listings reuses ERT (?) to handle spaces. We could of course
decide to have a new parameter to alloz multiple normal space. Even
better, we could use \obeyspaces in LyX-Code to make normal spaces
work like ~. This would solve many problems IMO (but create interesting
new ones probably).

JMarc

Re: layout question

[rgheck]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

rgheck rgh...@bobjweil.com writes:
  

At the moment, I'm not sure we can do that in a normal environment
(i.e., not in an inset). But there's no reason we couldn't.



Currently, listings reuses ERT (?) to handle spaces. We could of course
decide to have a new parameter to alloz multiple normal space. Even
better, we could use \obeyspaces in LyX-Code to make normal spaces
work like ~. This would solve many problems IMO (but create interesting
new ones probably).

  
Some alternative to the current ~ would be nice. Using ~ means, of 
course, that LaTeX has all kinds of problems with linebreaks if you try 
to use FreeSpacing in lines of any width.


rh

Re: layout question

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

rgheck rgh...@bobjweil.com writes:
 Some alternative to the current ~ would be nice. Using ~ means, of
 course, that LaTeX has all kinds of problems with linebreaks if you
 try to use FreeSpacing in lines of any width.

OTOH, some people are used to LyX-Code breaking lines and would not
unhappy to see their file output change...

JMarc

Re: layout question

[rgheck]

leuven edwin wrote:

i am fiddling with a layout i'm trying to put together

i want to define an environment that contains plain text.

i have the following

Style Stata-Log
LatexType Environment
LatexName stlog
FreeSpacing   true
KeepEmpty true
Font
  Family  Typewriter
  Color   latex
  SizeSmall
EndFont
End

which almost does the trick with the following exceptions

1. spaces are transformed to ~
2. after every line (i.e. paragraph) an extra line break is inserted

  
I think these are connected with FreeSpacing. (1) certainly is, since ~ 
is the only way to preserve multiple spaces in LaTeX. I'm not sure about 
(2).


rh

RE: layout question

[leuven edwin]

richard wrote:
>  ~ is the only way to preserve multiple spaces in LaTeX.

i don't think so, it depends on the environment. listings for example preserves 
multiple spaces.

what i am after is listings type behavior, but using Style instead of 
InsetLayout and for that i don't want the ~ nor the extra return

ed.

Re: layout question

[rgheck]

leuven edwin wrote:

richard wrote:
  

 ~ is the only way to preserve multiple spaces in LaTeX.



i don't think so, it depends on the environment. listings for example preserves 
multiple spaces.

  

I see.


what i am after is listings type behavior, but using Style instead of 
InsetLayout and for that i don't want the ~ nor the extra return

  
At the moment, I'm not sure we can do that in a normal environment 
(i.e., not in an inset). But there's no reason we couldn't.


rh

Re: layout question

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

rgheck  writes:
> At the moment, I'm not sure we can do that in a normal environment
> (i.e., not in an inset). But there's no reason we couldn't.

Currently, listings reuses ERT (?) to handle spaces. We could of course
decide to have a new parameter to alloz multiple normal space. Even
better, we could use \obeyspaces in LyX-Code to make normal spaces
work like ~. This would solve many problems IMO (but create interesting
new ones probably).

JMarc

Re: layout question

[rgheck]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

rgheck  writes:
  

At the moment, I'm not sure we can do that in a normal environment
(i.e., not in an inset). But there's no reason we couldn't.



Currently, listings reuses ERT (?) to handle spaces. We could of course
decide to have a new parameter to alloz multiple normal space. Even
better, we could use \obeyspaces in LyX-Code to make normal spaces
work like ~. This would solve many problems IMO (but create interesting
new ones probably).

  
Some alternative to the current ~ would be nice. Using ~ means, of 
course, that LaTeX has all kinds of problems with linebreaks if you try 
to use FreeSpacing in lines of any width.


rh

Re: layout question

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

rgheck  writes:
> Some alternative to the current ~ would be nice. Using ~ means, of
> course, that LaTeX has all kinds of problems with linebreaks if you
> try to use FreeSpacing in lines of any width.

OTOH, some people are used to LyX-Code breaking lines and would not
unhappy to see their file output change...

JMarc

Re: Layout question

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Paul A. Rubin wrote:

That makes sense, unless you can create an upload area readable by all 
but writable only by the developers.  As far as my tweaked layouts go, 
they won't be official until Juergen folds them into a subsequent 
release, at which point the wiki copies will be irrelevant.


There's been some comment on the user list about the desirability of 
having more people share layouts and such.  I had thought the wiki would 
be the ideal place for this.  It doesn't seem practical to use bugzilla 
to hold the files in general, so if not the wiki, then where?


I think the wiki will work well for sharing layouts and examples, that's 
why I created it after all. We just have to remember that there's no 
security to speak of here :-)


cheers,
/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: Layout question

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Paul A. Rubin wrote:

That makes sense, unless you can create an upload area readable by all 
but writable only by the developers.  As far as my tweaked layouts go, 
they won't be official until Juergen folds them into a subsequent 
release, at which point the wiki copies will be irrelevant.


There's been some comment on the user list about the desirability of 
having more people share layouts and such.  I had thought the wiki would 
be the ideal place for this.  It doesn't seem practical to use bugzilla 
to hold the files in general, so if not the wiki, then where?


I think the wiki will work well for sharing layouts and examples, that's 
why I created it after all. We just have to remember that there's no 
security to speak of here :-)


cheers,
/Christian

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: Layout question

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Paul A. Rubin wrote:


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 As a side note, it's perfectly possible to add an enhancement request to
 bugzilla, post a tweaked layout to bugzilla, and then refer to the tweaked
 layout in bugzilla from within a wiki page. Not sure if it helps, but it
 will keep the tweaked layout together with the enhancement request.


I went the opposite direction -- posted the layouts on the wiki and then 
put a link to the wiki page in the bugzilla request.  Probably just as 
well I took that route; I subsequently found a bug in my layouts (no 
doubt the first of many), and uploaded modified files to the wiki. Going 
the other way, I'd have to both upload the changes to bugzilla and then 
correct the link on the wiki.  At my age, remembering to do two things 
is pushing my luck.


Your approach is valid, but somewhat unsafe as others may alter your 
layout with no reasonable trace. Yes, this is a drawback with the current 
system, but difficult to do something about.


This is also why we should avoid placing official files _inside_ the 
wiki - more or less everybody can upload a modifed versione.


/C
 

Cheers,
Paul






--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: Layout question

[Paul A. Rubin]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Your approach is valid, but somewhat unsafe as others may alter your 
layout with no reasonable trace. Yes, this is a drawback with the 
current system, but difficult to do something about.


Well, if you're worrying about there being untrustworthy LyXers out 
there, I'm probably the least trustworthy of the lot, so my files should 
be safe.  ;-)


I see your point, though.  Layout files seem an unlikely target for the 
ill-intentioned, but it's possible some well-intentioned but perhaps 
misguided soul might modify the layouts and upload the new ones over the 
ones I posted.  If so, I expect it will be caught when the screaming 
starts on the user list.


This is also why we should avoid placing official files _inside_ the 
wiki - more or less everybody can upload a modifed versione.


That makes sense, unless you can create an upload area readable by all 
but writable only by the developers.  As far as my tweaked layouts go, 
they won't be official until Juergen folds them into a subsequent 
release, at which point the wiki copies will be irrelevant.


There's been some comment on the user list about the desirability of 
having more people share layouts and such.  I had thought the wiki would 
be the ideal place for this.  It doesn't seem practical to use bugzilla 
to hold the files in general, so if not the wiki, then where?


Cheers,
Paul

Re: Layout question

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Paul A. Rubin wrote:


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 As a side note, it's perfectly possible to add an enhancement request to
 bugzilla, post a tweaked layout to bugzilla, and then refer to the tweaked
 layout in bugzilla from within a wiki page. Not sure if it helps, but it
 will keep the tweaked layout together with the enhancement request.


I went the opposite direction -- posted the layouts on the wiki and then 
put a link to the wiki page in the bugzilla request.  Probably just as 
well I took that route; I subsequently found a bug in my layouts (no 
doubt the first of many), and uploaded modified files to the wiki. Going 
the other way, I'd have to both upload the changes to bugzilla and then 
correct the link on the wiki.  At my age, remembering to do two things 
is pushing my luck.


Your approach is valid, but somewhat unsafe as others may alter your 
layout with no reasonable trace. Yes, this is a drawback with the current 
system, but difficult to do something about.


This is also why we should avoid placing "official" files _inside_ the 
wiki - more or less everybody can upload a modifed versione.


/C
 >

Cheers,
Paul






--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: Layout question

[Paul A. Rubin]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Your approach is valid, but somewhat unsafe as others may alter your 
layout with no reasonable trace. Yes, this is a drawback with the 
current system, but difficult to do something about.


Well, if you're worrying about there being untrustworthy LyXers out 
there, I'm probably the least trustworthy of the lot, so my files should 
be safe.  ;-)


I see your point, though.  Layout files seem an unlikely target for the 
ill-intentioned, but it's possible some well-intentioned but perhaps 
misguided soul might modify the layouts and upload the new ones over the 
ones I posted.  If so, I expect it will be caught when the screaming 
starts on the user list.


This is also why we should avoid placing "official" files _inside_ the 
wiki - more or less everybody can upload a modifed versione.


That makes sense, unless you can create an upload area readable by all 
but writable only by the developers.  As far as my tweaked layouts go, 
they won't be official until Juergen folds them into a subsequent 
release, at which point the wiki copies will be irrelevant.


There's been some comment on the user list about the desirability of 
having more people share layouts and such.  I had thought the wiki would 
be the ideal place for this.  It doesn't seem practical to use bugzilla 
to hold the files in general, so if not the wiki, then where?


Cheers,
Paul

Re: Layout question

[Paul A. Rubin]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

As a side note, it's perfectly possible to add an enhancement request to 
bugzilla, post a tweaked layout to bugzilla, and then refer to the 
tweaked layout in bugzilla from within a wiki page. Not sure if it 
helps, but it will keep the tweaked layout together with the enhancement 
request.


I went the opposite direction -- posted the layouts on the wiki and then 
put a link to the wiki page in the bugzilla request.  Probably just as 
well I took that route; I subsequently found a bug in my layouts (no 
doubt the first of many), and uploaded modified files to the wiki. 
Going the other way, I'd have to both upload the changes to bugzilla and 
then correct the link on the wiki.  At my age, remembering to do two 
things is pushing my luck.


Cheers,
Paul

Re: Layout question

[Paul A. Rubin]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

As a side note, it's perfectly possible to add an enhancement request to 
bugzilla, post a tweaked layout to bugzilla, and then refer to the 
tweaked layout in bugzilla from within a wiki page. Not sure if it 
helps, but it will keep the tweaked layout together with the enhancement 
request.


I went the opposite direction -- posted the layouts on the wiki and then 
put a link to the wiki page in the bugzilla request.  Probably just as 
well I took that route; I subsequently found a bug in my layouts (no 
doubt the first of many), and uploaded modified files to the wiki. 
Going the other way, I'd have to both upload the changes to bugzilla and 
then correct the link on the wiki.  At my age, remembering to do two 
things is pushing my luck.


Cheers,
Paul

Re: Layout question

[Paul A. Rubin]

José Matos wrote:

On Sunday 15 July 2007 22:06:10 Paul A. Rubin wrote:

If some kind developer would test these and then commit them if
appropriate, I would be obliged.  If you'd prefer diff files, that could
probably be arranged.  Sorry for the web links, but I tried posting this
through GMANE with zip attachments, and sigha server at Memphis U
bounced it back to me/sigh.


  Paul, all this seems quite interesting. Could you please add this message to 
the wiki as an enhancement request for 1.5.x?


  If Jürgen agrees this could go in 1.5.1. The reason I have not included them 
in 1.5.0 (although I have considered the possibility) was the absence of a 
wider testing and discussion.




I wasn't sure where to post it the enhancement request on the wiki (vote 
for features?), so I entered it into bugzilla.  I've posted the tweaked 
layout files on the wiki in the meantime.


Cheers,
Paul

Re: Layout question

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Paul A. Rubin wrote:


José Matos wrote:

 On Sunday 15 July 2007 22:06:10 Paul A. Rubin wrote:
  If some kind developer would test these and then commit them if
  appropriate, I would be obliged.  If you'd prefer diff files, that could
  probably be arranged.  Sorry for the web links, but I tried posting this
  through GMANE with zip attachments, and sigha server at Memphis U
  bounced it back to me/sigh.

   Paul, all this seems quite interesting. Could you please add this
 message to the wiki as an enhancement request for 1.5.x?

   If Jürgen agrees this could go in 1.5.1. The reason I have not included
 them in 1.5.0 (although I have considered the possibility) was the absence
 of a wider testing and discussion.



I wasn't sure where to post it the enhancement request on the wiki (vote 
for features?), so I entered it into bugzilla.  I've posted the tweaked 
layout files on the wiki in the meantime.


Enhancement requests should go to bugzilla (really!). Posting tweaked 
layout files to the wiki is also fine, as a user submmitted layout.


As a side note, it's perfectly possible to add an enhancement request to 
bugzilla, post a tweaked layout to bugzilla, and then refer to the tweaked 
layout in bugzilla from within a wiki page. Not sure if it helps, but it 
will keep the tweaked layout together with the enhancement request.


Cheers,
Christian

 

Cheers,
Paul






--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: Layout question

[Paul A. Rubin]

José Matos wrote:

On Sunday 15 July 2007 22:06:10 Paul A. Rubin wrote:

If some kind developer would test these and then commit them if
appropriate, I would be obliged.  If you'd prefer diff files, that could
probably be arranged.  Sorry for the web links, but I tried posting this
through GMANE with zip attachments, and a server at Memphis U
bounced it back to me.


  Paul, all this seems quite interesting. Could you please add this message to 
the wiki as an enhancement request for 1.5.x?


  If Jürgen agrees this could go in 1.5.1. The reason I have not included them 
in 1.5.0 (although I have considered the possibility) was the absence of a 
wider testing and discussion.




I wasn't sure where to post it the enhancement request on the wiki (vote 
for features?), so I entered it into bugzilla.  I've posted the tweaked 
layout files on the wiki in the meantime.


Cheers,
Paul

Re: Layout question

[christian . ridderstrom]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Paul A. Rubin wrote:


José Matos wrote:

 On Sunday 15 July 2007 22:06:10 Paul A. Rubin wrote:
>  If some kind developer would test these and then commit them if
>  appropriate, I would be obliged.  If you'd prefer diff files, that could
>  probably be arranged.  Sorry for the web links, but I tried posting this
>  through GMANE with zip attachments, and a server at Memphis U
>  bounced it back to me.

   Paul, all this seems quite interesting. Could you please add this
 message to the wiki as an enhancement request for 1.5.x?

   If Jürgen agrees this could go in 1.5.1. The reason I have not included
 them in 1.5.0 (although I have considered the possibility) was the absence
 of a wider testing and discussion.



I wasn't sure where to post it the enhancement request on the wiki (vote 
for features?), so I entered it into bugzilla.  I've posted the tweaked 
layout files on the wiki in the meantime.


Enhancement requests should go to bugzilla (really!). Posting tweaked 
layout files to the wiki is also fine, as a user submmitted layout.


As a side note, it's perfectly possible to add an enhancement request to 
bugzilla, post a tweaked layout to bugzilla, and then refer to the tweaked 
layout in bugzilla from within a wiki page. Not sure if it helps, but it 
will keep the tweaked layout together with the enhancement request.


Cheers,
Christian

 >

Cheers,
Paul






--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: Layout question

[José Matos]

On Sunday 15 July 2007 22:06:10 Paul A. Rubin wrote:

 If some kind developer would test these and then commit them if
 appropriate, I would be obliged.  If you'd prefer diff files, that could
 probably be arranged.  Sorry for the web links, but I tried posting this
 through GMANE with zip attachments, and sigha server at Memphis U
 bounced it back to me/sigh.

  Paul, all this seems quite interesting. Could you please add this message to 
the wiki as an enhancement request for 1.5.x?

  If Jürgen agrees this could go in 1.5.1. The reason I have not included them 
in 1.5.0 (although I have considered the possibility) was the absence of a 
wider testing and discussion.

 Thanks,
 Paul

  Regards,
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Layout question

[José Matos]

On Sunday 15 July 2007 22:06:10 Paul A. Rubin wrote:
>
> If some kind developer would test these and then commit them if
> appropriate, I would be obliged.  If you'd prefer diff files, that could
> probably be arranged.  Sorry for the web links, but I tried posting this
> through GMANE with zip attachments, and a server at Memphis U
> bounced it back to me.

  Paul, all this seems quite interesting. Could you please add this message to 
the wiki as an enhancement request for 1.5.x?

  If Jürgen agrees this could go in 1.5.1. The reason I have not included them 
in 1.5.0 (although I have considered the possibility) was the absence of a 
wider testing and discussion.

> Thanks,
> Paul

  Regards,
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Layout question

[Richard Heck]

Paul A. Rubin wrote:

Hi,

Before I put this is in as an enhancement request, I wanted to make 
sure it doesn't already exist.  I know you can define counters in a 
layout function.  Is there a mechanism to specify, say when defining a 
section style, that certain counters get reset at the start of the 
section?  If not, I'll put it in bugzilla.

I don't know of any such facility.

rh

--
==
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto

Re: Layout question

[Martin Vermeer]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 09:59:32AM -0400, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Before I put this is in as an enhancement request, I wanted to make sure it 
  doesn't already exist.  I know you can define counters in a layout function. 
   Is there a mechanism to specify, say when defining a section style, that 
  certain counters get reset at the start of the section?  If not, I'll put it 
  in bugzilla.
 
  The reason this came up is that the standard AMS document class restarts 
  theorem numbering in each section, but the amsart.layout does not.
 
  Thanks,
  Paul

Yes, this is possible, but I don't remember the details. Look in 
stdcounters.inc the Within keyword.

HTH Martin

 

Re: Layout question

[Paul A. Rubin]

Martin Vermeer wrote:

On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 09:59:32AM -0400, Paul A. Rubin wrote:

 Hi,

 Before I put this is in as an enhancement request, I wanted to make sure it 
 doesn't already exist.  I know you can define counters in a layout function. 
  Is there a mechanism to specify, say when defining a section style, that 
 certain counters get reset at the start of the section?  If not, I'll put it 
 in bugzilla.


 The reason this came up is that the standard AMS document class restarts 
 theorem numbering in each section, but the amsart.layout does not.


 Thanks,
 Paul


Yes, this is possible, but I don't remember the details. Look in 
stdcounters.inc the Within keyword.

HTH Martin

 


Thanks, Martin, it helped a lot.

I've put two zip archives on a web server, one for version 1.4.x 
(http://www.msu.edu/~rubin/amsmath14.zip) and the other for version 
1.5.x (http://www.msu.edu/~rubin/amsmath15.zip).  They contain tweaked 
copies of the various layout and include files for AMS articles.  The 
1.5 zip file also includes a small LyX document for testing them.  The 
purpose of the changes was two-fold:


1.  I added the Assumption and Assumption* environments, which AMS 
supports but the layouts previously did not.


2.  I convinced the standard AMS layout to number theorem-like styles 
within sections (so that the first theorem of section 3 is 3.1, not 
3.previous number + 1).


I don't *think* I broke anything, but then I never think I'm breaking 
anything.


If some kind developer would test these and then commit them if 
appropriate, I would be obliged.  If you'd prefer diff files, that could 
probably be arranged.  Sorry for the web links, but I tried posting this 
through GMANE with zip attachments, and sigha server at Memphis U 
bounced it back to me/sigh.


Thanks,
Paul

Re: Layout question

[Richard Heck]

Paul A. Rubin wrote:

Hi,

Before I put this is in as an enhancement request, I wanted to make 
sure it doesn't already exist.  I know you can define counters in a 
layout function.  Is there a mechanism to specify, say when defining a 
section style, that certain counters get reset at the start of the 
section?  If not, I'll put it in bugzilla.

I don't know of any such facility.

rh

--
==
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto

Re: Layout question

[Martin Vermeer]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 09:59:32AM -0400, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
>  Hi,
> 
>  Before I put this is in as an enhancement request, I wanted to make sure it 
>  doesn't already exist.  I know you can define counters in a layout function. 
>   Is there a mechanism to specify, say when defining a section style, that 
>  certain counters get reset at the start of the section?  If not, I'll put it 
>  in bugzilla.
> 
>  The reason this came up is that the standard AMS document class restarts 
>  theorem numbering in each section, but the amsart.layout does not.
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Paul

Yes, this is possible, but I don't remember the details. Look in 
stdcounters.inc the Within keyword.

HTH Martin

 

Re: Layout question

[Paul A. Rubin]

Martin Vermeer wrote:

On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 09:59:32AM -0400, Paul A. Rubin wrote:

 Hi,

 Before I put this is in as an enhancement request, I wanted to make sure it 
 doesn't already exist.  I know you can define counters in a layout function. 
  Is there a mechanism to specify, say when defining a section style, that 
 certain counters get reset at the start of the section?  If not, I'll put it 
 in bugzilla.


 The reason this came up is that the standard AMS document class restarts 
 theorem numbering in each section, but the amsart.layout does not.


 Thanks,
 Paul


Yes, this is possible, but I don't remember the details. Look in 
stdcounters.inc the Within keyword.

HTH Martin

 


Thanks, Martin, it helped a lot.

I've put two zip archives on a web server, one for version 1.4.x 
(http://www.msu.edu/~rubin/amsmath14.zip) and the other for version 
1.5.x (http://www.msu.edu/~rubin/amsmath15.zip).  They contain tweaked 
copies of the various layout and include files for AMS articles.  The 
1.5 zip file also includes a small LyX document for testing them.  The 
purpose of the changes was two-fold:


1.  I added the Assumption and Assumption* environments, which AMS 
supports but the layouts previously did not.


2.  I convinced the "standard" AMS layout to number theorem-like styles 
within sections (so that the first theorem of section 3 is 3.1, not 
3.).


I don't *think* I broke anything, but then I never think I'm breaking 
anything.


If some kind developer would test these and then commit them if 
appropriate, I would be obliged.  If you'd prefer diff files, that could 
probably be arranged.  Sorry for the web links, but I tried posting this 
through GMANE with zip attachments, and a server at Memphis U 
bounced it back to me.


Thanks,
Paul