A general layout/ layout-less lyx file
milde at users.sf.net
Mon Sep 28 12:25:19 UTC 2020
On 2020-09-27, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 01:38:18PM +0300, email.ilan at gmail.com wrote:
>> I maintain a file with many macros which I use in all of my projects.
>> My projects usually differ in their layout (e.g., due to submitting to
>> different journals) so I commonly get a warning of mismatch between the
>> layout of the macros file and the layout of the project file.
> Seems like a common workflow and I can see how that would be annoying.
>> Is there a way to define the macros file to be layout-less (since it is not
>> a stand-alone file so I never compile it) or maybe define it to be of a
>> user-defined layout that will be compatible with any article layout I will
>> be using (of course, I guess I'll need to manually define and extend this
>> list of compatible layouts).
> Not that I know of but I think it's a good idea. We do have the concept
> of "no color" and "no language". You make a good argument in my opinion
> for something like "no class".
> A related idea we've discussed before in different contexts is the idea
> that child documents could share document settings of master documents.
> In this case, you want the child document to inherit the document class
> of the master document. This is not implemented yet, but there are a
> few different use cases we would want that general framework.
I think this is the better approach. Besides beeing more general, it
saves us from having to decide which "documentclass" the "no class"
should get or if we should raise an error with any attempt to compile
this "no class"-document.
A "don't warn about different documentcalss" button in the
Isert>File>Child Document pop-up seems an easy thing to add.
More information about the lyx-users