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
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 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
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
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
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,
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
| |
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
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
I'm not very good at eating humble pie, but I feel I have to here :-(
Lars, the patch that I submitted to TeX.pm this afternoon broke reLyX when
tested with the other test cases in bugzilla. It didn't include the
trailing whitespace as part of the macro and reLyX therefore generated
tokens
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
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
I'm not very good at eating humble pie, but I feel I have to here :-(
Lars, the patch that I submitted to TeX.pm this afternoon broke reLyX when
tested with the other test cases in bugzilla. It didn't include the
trailing whitespace as part of the macro and reLyX therefore generated
tokens
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
