Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 07.01.2009 um 22:45 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,  
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for  
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Why \global?

I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.


It does? I think I tried and it did not.

A second requirement: the distinction between \newcommand and  
\renewcommand is very fragile. It is far from trivial to say whether a  
macro is redefined in some cases. E.g., in a lyx comment a definition  
will be ignored.


It would be nice to make the case all optional arguments are before  
required ones work with plain \newcommand.


What do you mean? I had a self-made \newcommand implementation that  
could do that. But it is quite large (obviously), and it also look  
strange to put that into the preamble. For that reason we switched to  
xargs instead.


Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 07.01.2009 um 22:45 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,  
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for  
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Why \global?


Because without the logic is complicated:

  \newcommand{\foo}{a} \textbf{\renewcommand{\foo}{b} bla} $\foo$

What is printed in the output? What should be shown on screen?

Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Stefan Schimanski s...@1stein.org writes:
 I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.

 It does? I think I tried and it did not.

I might be wrong. I cannot find reference to that right now.

 A second requirement: the distinction between \newcommand and
 \renewcommand is very fragile. It is far from trivial to say whether a
 macro is redefined in some cases. E.g., in a lyx comment a definition
 will be ignored.

LyX should skip macro definitions in comments anyway.

 It would be nice to make the case all optional arguments are before
 required ones work with plain \newcommand.

 What do you mean? I had a self-made \newcommand implementation that
 could do that. But it is quite large (obviously), and it also look
 strange to put that into the preamble. For that reason we switched to
 xargs instead.

Sorry, I was mistaken about what newcommand can do. I meant: commands
with one optional argument before the required ones.

JMarc

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 07.01.2009 um 22:45 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,  
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for  
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Why \global?

I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.


It does? I think I tried and it did not.

A second requirement: the distinction between \newcommand and  
\renewcommand is very fragile. It is far from trivial to say whether a  
macro is redefined in some cases. E.g., in a lyx comment a definition  
will be ignored.


It would be nice to make the case all optional arguments are before  
required ones work with plain \newcommand.


What do you mean? I had a self-made \newcommand implementation that  
could do that. But it is quite large (obviously), and it also look  
strange to put that into the preamble. For that reason we switched to  
xargs instead.


Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 07.01.2009 um 22:45 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,  
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for  
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Why \global?


Because without the logic is complicated:

  \newcommand{\foo}{a} \textbf{\renewcommand{\foo}{b} bla} $\foo$

What is printed in the output? What should be shown on screen?

Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Stefan Schimanski s...@1stein.org writes:
 I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.

 It does? I think I tried and it did not.

I might be wrong. I cannot find reference to that right now.

 A second requirement: the distinction between \newcommand and
 \renewcommand is very fragile. It is far from trivial to say whether a
 macro is redefined in some cases. E.g., in a lyx comment a definition
 will be ignored.

LyX should skip macro definitions in comments anyway.

 It would be nice to make the case all optional arguments are before
 required ones work with plain \newcommand.

 What do you mean? I had a self-made \newcommand implementation that
 could do that. But it is quite large (obviously), and it also look
 strange to put that into the preamble. For that reason we switched to
 xargs instead.

Sorry, I was mistaken about what newcommand can do. I meant: commands
with one optional argument before the required ones.

JMarc

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 07.01.2009 um 22:45 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,  
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for  
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Why \global?

I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.


It does? I think I tried and it did not.

A second requirement: the distinction between \newcommand and  
\renewcommand is very fragile. It is far from trivial to say whether a  
macro is redefined in some cases. E.g., in a lyx comment a definition  
will be ignored.


It would be nice to make the case "all optional arguments are before  
required ones" work with plain \newcommand.


What do you mean? I had a self-made \newcommand implementation that  
could do that. But it is quite large (obviously), and it also look  
strange to put that into the preamble. For that reason we switched to  
xargs instead.


Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 07.01.2009 um 22:45 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,  
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for  
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Why \global?


Because without the logic is complicated:

  \newcommand{\foo}{a} \textbf{\renewcommand{\foo}{b} bla} $\foo$

What is printed in the output? What should be shown on screen?

Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Stefan Schimanski  writes:
>> I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.
>
> It does? I think I tried and it did not.

I might be wrong. I cannot find reference to that right now.

> A second requirement: the distinction between \newcommand and
> \renewcommand is very fragile. It is far from trivial to say whether a
> macro is redefined in some cases. E.g., in a lyx comment a definition
> will be ignored.

LyX should skip macro definitions in comments anyway.

>> It would be nice to make the case "all optional arguments are before
>> required ones" work with plain \newcommand.
>
> What do you mean? I had a self-made \newcommand implementation that
> could do that. But it is quite large (obviously), and it also look
> strange to put that into the preamble. For that reason we switched to
> xargs instead.

Sorry, I was mistaken about what newcommand can do. I meant: "commands
with one optional argument before the required ones".

JMarc

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

[cc:ing to lyx-devel]

James C. Sutherland james.sutherl...@utah.edu writes:
 Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the xargs
 package.  The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:
   \usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
 which I discarded.  This is presumably where the \newcommandx tag is
 defined.  The problem is that when I run LaTeX on the file, I get an
 error:
   File 'xargs.sty' not found
 The LyX file compiles fine, so I must have this file installed, but I
 cannot seem to find where.  I have attached the actual .tex file that
 LyX produces.  Is anyone else able to compile this?

I think it was an error to rely on such a new package to provide this
functionality. The example document is clearly a case that can be
handled by a plain \newcommand statement. 

Could LyX be smarter in the kind of code it exports and only use weird
packages when really needed?

Stefan, are you here?

JMarc

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 07.01.2009 um 10:59 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:



[cc:ing to lyx-devel]

James C. Sutherland james.sutherl...@utah.edu writes:

Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the xargs
package.  The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:
\usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
which I discarded.  This is presumably where the \newcommandx tag  
is

defined.  The problem is that when I run LaTeX on the file, I get an
error:
File 'xargs.sty' not found
The LyX file compiles fine, so I must have this file installed, but I
cannot seem to find where.  I have attached the actual .tex file that
LyX produces.  Is anyone else able to compile this?


I think it was an error to rely on such a new package to provide this
functionality. The example document is clearly a case that can be
handled by a plain \newcommand statement.

Could LyX be smarter in the kind of code it exports and only use weird
packages when really needed?


In fact it is supposed to be smart enough.

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But, what  
we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for this case.  
Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 06.01.2009 um 16:58 schrieb James C. Sutherland:

I have been using macros in 1.6.1, and recently tried to use a macro  
with an optional argument.  I have attached a trivial LyX file that  
shows this macro and an example of its use.  This compiles through  
LyX just fine.


The problem is that if I export the file to LaTeX and then try to  
compile it, the macro definition seems to create problems.  This  
does not occur with macros that only have required arguments.  I  
don't know much about LaTeX macros, so I am not sure if what LyX is  
doing for the LaTeX export makes sense or not.  However, macros with  
optional arguments have the \newcommandx tag while macros without  
optional arguments do not.  The \newcommandx tag seems to give  
LaTeX some trouble.  Specifically, when I compile the .tex file, I  
get the error Undefined control sequence when the \newcommandx  
line is parsed.  I have also attached the exported .tex file.


Can anyone duplicate this?  Is this a known problem?

I am on Mac OSX with LyX 1.6.1.


Updating your MacTex to the latest version will solve the problem.

Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,  
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for  
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Why \global?

I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.

It would be nice to make the case all optional arguments are before  
required ones work with plain \newcommand.


JMarc

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[James C. Sutherland]

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Stefan Schimanski wrote:


Updating your MacTex to the latest version will solve the problem.



Updating MacTex did the job. Thank you!

James

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

[cc:ing to lyx-devel]

James C. Sutherland james.sutherl...@utah.edu writes:
 Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the xargs
 package.  The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:
   \usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
 which I discarded.  This is presumably where the \newcommandx tag is
 defined.  The problem is that when I run LaTeX on the file, I get an
 error:
   File 'xargs.sty' not found
 The LyX file compiles fine, so I must have this file installed, but I
 cannot seem to find where.  I have attached the actual .tex file that
 LyX produces.  Is anyone else able to compile this?

I think it was an error to rely on such a new package to provide this
functionality. The example document is clearly a case that can be
handled by a plain \newcommand statement. 

Could LyX be smarter in the kind of code it exports and only use weird
packages when really needed?

Stefan, are you here?

JMarc

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 07.01.2009 um 10:59 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:



[cc:ing to lyx-devel]

James C. Sutherland james.sutherl...@utah.edu writes:

Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the xargs
package.  The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:
\usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
which I discarded.  This is presumably where the \newcommandx tag  
is

defined.  The problem is that when I run LaTeX on the file, I get an
error:
File 'xargs.sty' not found
The LyX file compiles fine, so I must have this file installed, but I
cannot seem to find where.  I have attached the actual .tex file that
LyX produces.  Is anyone else able to compile this?


I think it was an error to rely on such a new package to provide this
functionality. The example document is clearly a case that can be
handled by a plain \newcommand statement.

Could LyX be smarter in the kind of code it exports and only use weird
packages when really needed?


In fact it is supposed to be smart enough.

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But, what  
we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for this case.  
Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 06.01.2009 um 16:58 schrieb James C. Sutherland:

I have been using macros in 1.6.1, and recently tried to use a macro  
with an optional argument.  I have attached a trivial LyX file that  
shows this macro and an example of its use.  This compiles through  
LyX just fine.


The problem is that if I export the file to LaTeX and then try to  
compile it, the macro definition seems to create problems.  This  
does not occur with macros that only have required arguments.  I  
don't know much about LaTeX macros, so I am not sure if what LyX is  
doing for the LaTeX export makes sense or not.  However, macros with  
optional arguments have the \newcommandx tag while macros without  
optional arguments do not.  The \newcommandx tag seems to give  
LaTeX some trouble.  Specifically, when I compile the .tex file, I  
get the error Undefined control sequence when the \newcommandx  
line is parsed.  I have also attached the exported .tex file.


Can anyone duplicate this?  Is this a known problem?

I am on Mac OSX with LyX 1.6.1.


Updating your MacTex to the latest version will solve the problem.

Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,  
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for  
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Why \global?

I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.

It would be nice to make the case all optional arguments are before  
required ones work with plain \newcommand.


JMarc

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[James C. Sutherland]

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Stefan Schimanski wrote:


Updating your MacTex to the latest version will solve the problem.



Updating MacTex did the job. Thank you!

James

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

[cc:ing to lyx-devel]

"James C. Sutherland"  writes:
> Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the "xargs"
> package.  The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:
>   \usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
> which I discarded.  This is presumably where the "\newcommandx" tag is
> defined.  The problem is that when I run LaTeX on the file, I get an
> error:
>   "File 'xargs.sty' not found"
> The LyX file compiles fine, so I must have this file installed, but I
> cannot seem to find where.  I have attached the actual .tex file that
> LyX produces.  Is anyone else able to compile this?

I think it was an error to rely on such a new package to provide this
functionality. The example document is clearly a case that can be
handled by a plain \newcommand statement. 

Could LyX be smarter in the kind of code it exports and only use weird
packages when really needed?

Stefan, are you here?

JMarc

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 07.01.2009 um 10:59 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:



[cc:ing to lyx-devel]

"James C. Sutherland"  writes:

Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the "xargs"
package.  The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:
\usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
which I discarded.  This is presumably where the "\newcommandx" tag  
is

defined.  The problem is that when I run LaTeX on the file, I get an
error:
"File 'xargs.sty' not found"
The LyX file compiles fine, so I must have this file installed, but I
cannot seem to find where.  I have attached the actual .tex file that
LyX produces.  Is anyone else able to compile this?


I think it was an error to rely on such a new package to provide this
functionality. The example document is clearly a case that can be
handled by a plain \newcommand statement.

Could LyX be smarter in the kind of code it exports and only use weird
packages when really needed?


In fact it is supposed to be smart enough.

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But, what  
we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for this case.  
Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Stefan Schimanski]

Am 06.01.2009 um 16:58 schrieb James C. Sutherland:

I have been using macros in 1.6.1, and recently tried to use a macro  
with an optional argument.  I have attached a trivial LyX file that  
shows this macro and an example of its use.  This compiles through  
LyX just fine.


The problem is that if I export the file to LaTeX and then try to  
compile it, the macro definition seems to create problems.  This  
does not occur with macros that only have required arguments.  I  
don't know much about LaTeX macros, so I am not sure if what LyX is  
doing for the LaTeX export makes sense or not.  However, macros with  
optional arguments have the "\newcommandx" tag while macros without  
optional arguments do not.  The "\newcommandx" tag seems to give  
LaTeX some trouble.  Specifically, when I compile the .tex file, I  
get the error "Undefined control sequence" when the "\newcommandx"  
line is parsed.  I have also attached the exported .tex file.


Can anyone duplicate this?  Is this a known problem?

I am on Mac OSX with LyX 1.6.1.


Updating your MacTex to the latest version will solve the problem.

Stefan

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

xargs is only needed if you have macros with optional arguments. Of  
course, \newcommand could handle the case with one optional. But,  
what we need in fact is something equivalent to \global\def for  
this case. Is there a way to do this with \newcommand?


Why \global?

I think that \global\newcommand works in any case.

It would be nice to make the case "all optional arguments are before  
required ones" work with plain \newcommand.


JMarc

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[James C. Sutherland]

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Stefan Schimanski wrote:


Updating your MacTex to the latest version will solve the problem.



Updating MacTex did the job. Thank you!

James

Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[James C. Sutherland]

I have been using macros in 1.6.1, and recently tried to use a macro  
with an optional argument.  I have attached a trivial LyX file that  
shows this macro and an example of its use.  This compiles through LyX  
just fine.


The problem is that if I export the file to LaTeX and then try to  
compile it, the macro definition seems to create problems.  This does  
not occur with macros that only have required arguments.  I don't know  
much about LaTeX macros, so I am not sure if what LyX is doing for the  
LaTeX export makes sense or not.  However, macros with optional  
arguments have the \newcommandx tag while macros without optional  
arguments do not.  The \newcommandx tag seems to give LaTeX some  
trouble.  Specifically, when I compile the .tex file, I get the error  
Undefined control sequence when the \newcommandx line is parsed.   
I have also attached the exported .tex file.


Can anyone duplicate this?  Is this a known problem?

I am on Mac OSX with LyX 1.6.1.

James



macro_test.tex
Description: Binary data


macro_test.lyx
Description: Binary data

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[James C. Sutherland]

Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the xargs  
package.  The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:

\usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
which I discarded.  This is presumably where the \newcommandx tag is  
defined.  The problem is that when I run LaTeX on the file, I get an  
error:

File 'xargs.sty' not found
The LyX file compiles fine, so I must have this file installed, but I  
cannot seem to find where.  I have attached the actual .tex file that  
LyX produces.  Is anyone else able to compile this?


James


macro_test.tex
Description: Binary data





On Jan 6, 2009, at 8:58 AM, James C. Sutherland wrote:

I have been using macros in 1.6.1, and recently tried to use a macro  
with an optional argument.  I have attached a trivial LyX file that  
shows this macro and an example of its use.  This compiles through  
LyX just fine.


The problem is that if I export the file to LaTeX and then try to  
compile it, the macro definition seems to create problems.  This  
does not occur with macros that only have required arguments.  I  
don't know much about LaTeX macros, so I am not sure if what LyX is  
doing for the LaTeX export makes sense or not.  However, macros with  
optional arguments have the \newcommandx tag while macros without  
optional arguments do not.  The \newcommandx tag seems to give  
LaTeX some trouble.  Specifically, when I compile the .tex file, I  
get the error Undefined control sequence when the \newcommandx  
line is parsed.  I have also attached the exported .tex file.


Can anyone duplicate this?  Is this a known problem?

I am on Mac OSX with LyX 1.6.1.

James

macro_test.texmacro_test.lyx

Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[James C. Sutherland]

I have been using macros in 1.6.1, and recently tried to use a macro  
with an optional argument.  I have attached a trivial LyX file that  
shows this macro and an example of its use.  This compiles through LyX  
just fine.


The problem is that if I export the file to LaTeX and then try to  
compile it, the macro definition seems to create problems.  This does  
not occur with macros that only have required arguments.  I don't know  
much about LaTeX macros, so I am not sure if what LyX is doing for the  
LaTeX export makes sense or not.  However, macros with optional  
arguments have the \newcommandx tag while macros without optional  
arguments do not.  The \newcommandx tag seems to give LaTeX some  
trouble.  Specifically, when I compile the .tex file, I get the error  
Undefined control sequence when the \newcommandx line is parsed.   
I have also attached the exported .tex file.


Can anyone duplicate this?  Is this a known problem?

I am on Mac OSX with LyX 1.6.1.

James



macro_test.tex
Description: Binary data


macro_test.lyx
Description: Binary data

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[James C. Sutherland]

Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the xargs  
package.  The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:

\usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
which I discarded.  This is presumably where the \newcommandx tag is  
defined.  The problem is that when I run LaTeX on the file, I get an  
error:

File 'xargs.sty' not found
The LyX file compiles fine, so I must have this file installed, but I  
cannot seem to find where.  I have attached the actual .tex file that  
LyX produces.  Is anyone else able to compile this?


James


macro_test.tex
Description: Binary data





On Jan 6, 2009, at 8:58 AM, James C. Sutherland wrote:

I have been using macros in 1.6.1, and recently tried to use a macro  
with an optional argument.  I have attached a trivial LyX file that  
shows this macro and an example of its use.  This compiles through  
LyX just fine.


The problem is that if I export the file to LaTeX and then try to  
compile it, the macro definition seems to create problems.  This  
does not occur with macros that only have required arguments.  I  
don't know much about LaTeX macros, so I am not sure if what LyX is  
doing for the LaTeX export makes sense or not.  However, macros with  
optional arguments have the \newcommandx tag while macros without  
optional arguments do not.  The \newcommandx tag seems to give  
LaTeX some trouble.  Specifically, when I compile the .tex file, I  
get the error Undefined control sequence when the \newcommandx  
line is parsed.  I have also attached the exported .tex file.


Can anyone duplicate this?  Is this a known problem?

I am on Mac OSX with LyX 1.6.1.

James

macro_test.texmacro_test.lyx

Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[James C. Sutherland]

I have been using macros in 1.6.1, and recently tried to use a macro  
with an optional argument.  I have attached a trivial LyX file that  
shows this macro and an example of its use.  This compiles through LyX  
just fine.


The problem is that if I export the file to LaTeX and then try to  
compile it, the macro definition seems to create problems.  This does  
not occur with macros that only have required arguments.  I don't know  
much about LaTeX macros, so I am not sure if what LyX is doing for the  
LaTeX export makes sense or not.  However, macros with optional  
arguments have the "\newcommandx" tag while macros without optional  
arguments do not.  The "\newcommandx" tag seems to give LaTeX some  
trouble.  Specifically, when I compile the .tex file, I get the error  
"Undefined control sequence" when the "\newcommandx" line is parsed.   
I have also attached the exported .tex file.


Can anyone duplicate this?  Is this a known problem?

I am on Mac OSX with LyX 1.6.1.

James



macro_test.tex
Description: Binary data


macro_test.lyx
Description: Binary data

Re: Macros with optional arguments - LyX 1.6.1

[James C. Sutherland]

Okay, I think that I found the problem: I am missing the "xargs"  
package.  The exported LaTeX file actually had a line:

\usepackage{xargs}[2008/03/08]
which I discarded.  This is presumably where the "\newcommandx" tag is  
defined.  The problem is that when I run LaTeX on the file, I get an  
error:

"File 'xargs.sty' not found"
The LyX file compiles fine, so I must have this file installed, but I  
cannot seem to find where.  I have attached the actual .tex file that  
LyX produces.  Is anyone else able to compile this?


James


macro_test.tex
Description: Binary data





On Jan 6, 2009, at 8:58 AM, James C. Sutherland wrote:

I have been using macros in 1.6.1, and recently tried to use a macro  
with an optional argument.  I have attached a trivial LyX file that  
shows this macro and an example of its use.  This compiles through  
LyX just fine.


The problem is that if I export the file to LaTeX and then try to  
compile it, the macro definition seems to create problems.  This  
does not occur with macros that only have required arguments.  I  
don't know much about LaTeX macros, so I am not sure if what LyX is  
doing for the LaTeX export makes sense or not.  However, macros with  
optional arguments have the "\newcommandx" tag while macros without  
optional arguments do not.  The "\newcommandx" tag seems to give  
LaTeX some trouble.  Specifically, when I compile the .tex file, I  
get the error "Undefined control sequence" when the "\newcommandx"  
line is parsed.  I have also attached the exported .tex file.


Can anyone duplicate this?  Is this a known problem?

I am on Mac OSX with LyX 1.6.1.

James