On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:44:47AM +0200, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
The math-macro definitions have the advantage that they are expanded and
appear in WYSIWM mode (a LyX perk!). However, there seems to be no
mechanism for saving the math-macro definitions as part of a standard
template.
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael P Friedlander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: math-macros
I just started using LyX, and even after a few hours, it's clear that it's
a great advance over using LaTeX directly, even with great packages like
AucTeX under
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:44:47AM +0200, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
The math-macro definitions have the advantage that they are expanded and
appear in WYSIWM mode (a LyX perk!). However, there seems to be no
mechanism for saving the math-macro definitions as part of a standard
template.
>>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
>>From: Michael P Friedlander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: math-macros
>>
>>I just started using LyX, and even after a few hours, it's clear that it's
>>a great advance over using LaTeX directly, even with great packages
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:44:47AM +0200, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote:
> >>The math-macro definitions have the advantage that they are expanded and
> >>appear in WYSIWM mode (a LyX perk!). However, there seems to be no
> >>mechanism for saving the math-macro definitions as part of a standard
>
On 21-Apr-99 Etienne Grossmann wrote:
indeed, LyX "sees" all the macros that have been defined in all
its open documents (and apparently in those it has closed too).
Sorry for not having thought about that ...
That's ok -- now that it is known, it can be fixed! :) It might
On 21-Apr-99 Etienne Grossmann wrote:
indeed, LyX "sees" all the macros that have been defined in all
its open documents (and apparently in those it has closed too).
Sorry for not having thought about that ...
That's ok -- now that it is known, it can be fixed! :) It might
On 21-Apr-99 Etienne Grossmann wrote:
> indeed, LyX "sees" all the macros that have been defined in all
> its open documents (and apparently in those it has closed too).
>
> Sorry for not having thought about that ...
That's ok -- now that it is known, it can be fixed! :) It might
Hello,
so, you do "M-x msol" , then write a 'm' with a dot, then use,
in math-mode, the macro '\msol', which appears fine on the screen,
but LaTeX won't compile? Strange indeed.
Could you create a short file, with e.g. just the macro definition
and an instance of it, check whether LaTeX
John Ya-ya wrote:
It seemed to me that this would allow me to define a macro, say "msol", to save
me from having to type a lot when I want to insert the M-with-subscripted-odot
that represents a "solar mass". Ok, I defined the macro as directed, and went
into a math box and typed "\msol"
On 21-Apr-99 Etienne Grossmann wrote:
Hello,
so, you do "M-x msol" , then write a 'm' with a dot, then use,
in math-mode, the macro '\msol', which appears fine on the screen,
but LaTeX won't compile? Strange indeed.
Exactly. Well, not exactly -- "M-x math-macro msol", to be
Hello,
so, you do "M-x msol" , then write a 'm' with a dot, then use,
in math-mode, the macro '\msol', which appears fine on the screen,
but LaTeX won't compile? Strange indeed.
Could you create a short file, with e.g. just the macro definition
and an instance of it, check whether LaTeX
John Ya-ya wrote:
It seemed to me that this would allow me to define a macro, say "msol", to save
me from having to type a lot when I want to insert the M-with-subscripted-odot
that represents a "solar mass". Ok, I defined the macro as directed, and went
into a math box and typed "\msol"
On 21-Apr-99 Etienne Grossmann wrote:
Hello,
so, you do "M-x msol" , then write a 'm' with a dot, then use,
in math-mode, the macro '\msol', which appears fine on the screen,
but LaTeX won't compile? Strange indeed.
Exactly. Well, not exactly -- "M-x math-macro msol", to be
Hello,
so, you do "M-x msol" , then write a 'm' with a dot, then use,
in math-mode, the macro '\msol', which appears fine on the screen,
but LaTeX won't compile? Strange indeed.
Could you create a short file, with e.g. just the macro definition
and an instance of it, check whether LaTeX
John Ya-ya wrote:
>
> It seemed to me that this would allow me to define a macro, say "msol", to save
> me from having to type a lot when I want to insert the M-with-subscripted-odot
> that represents a "solar mass". Ok, I defined the macro as directed, and went
> into a math box and typed
On 21-Apr-99 Etienne Grossmann wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> so, you do "M-x msol" , then write a 'm' with a dot, then use,
> in math-mode, the macro '\msol', which appears fine on the screen,
> but LaTeX won't compile? Strange indeed.
Exactly. Well, not exactly -- "M-x math-macro msol",
101 - 117 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
