Path to extending Lyx to a full featured Jupyter-like IDE

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 3/11/20 9:45 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:05:58PM -0400, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
>> On 3/10/20 9:24 PM, Allen Barker wrote:
>>> It would be nice to have an option to have the LFUN just return the
>>> filename rather than running an editor process on the file.
>>> Sometimes users might want to edit the inset text and sometimes you
>>> might want to process the text with your already-running program
>>> (Lyx Notebook uses Lyx server pipes).
>> There must be some reasonable way to do that. Can't be too hard.
> I'm not suggesting the following as a solution, but perhaps it can serve
> as a workaround: it would be easy to specify a command called
> "editor-wrapper" that checks if the editor is running and if so uses
> whatever mechanism that editor uses to open a file in a running instance
> of the program; and if it is not running it starts the program as usual.
>
> On a separate note, I don't know if it would be useful for your use case
> but another feature that would be useful for the case of the knitr
> module would be the possibility to open *all* knitr chunks in a separate
> file. The chunks could be separated by comments, and that's how LyX
> would know how to import edits back to which insets. Currently it's
> necessary to go to File > Export > R, do debugging there, then port the
> fix back to the .lyx file. I'm not sure how complicated this feature
> would be, but I log it here just in case.

In 2.4.0, it should be possible to make chunks editable externally, and
then you can open each one separately. I didn't actually add this flag.
You might want to check it out and add it if you think it makes sense.
It occurs to me that we might also want to have a way to define a
particular editor to be used to edit certain insets. Now, it will always
be the editor defined for the document format.

I'm not sure about opening them all at once. What if you added a new
inset in the meantime?

Riki