On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:55:38PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > >>>Also "fully" and "patch" does not help. And not "angus", "2007", > >>>"abdel" (or "signal") and a lot of other combinations. > > > >I also see that Angus solved your C++ related problem. No less, no > >more. Specifically it does not comment on the general sanity of the > >signal-in-InsetBase idea. > > I _never_ said that Angus endorsed the patch, just that he helped me. I > just said that *nobody* commented the approach, period.
Which in the time of an upcoming release plainly means 'rejected'. > >>The funny thing is that you participated a bit to the thread. Go down in > >>th thread from this message: > >> > >>http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg117657.html > >> > >>You'll see in there that you didn't even dare answering my question. > > > >I cite myself: > > > > "Do we officially have multiple views now? I still don't think the > > core is ready for this." > > > >and this is certainly not an endorsement of your idea. > > Again, I ***NEVER*** said that, only that you *NEVER* comment. Oh, I sometimes do comment. I would have thought you noticed... > >In fact, I doubt > >it is related at all as your patch is not in sight in this mail. > > > >Best thing I can do now is to plead guilty on either not reading your > >patch or not noticing the added signal. In any case the signal can't > >be left in. > > I still see no rationale, no constructive critics, nothing, nada, rien! I think I mentioned iterator registration a couple of times now. > >So either someone comes up with a real fix or I'll prepare > >a patch to remove the signal and disable multiple views at the weekend. > > At least you'll do something. Preventing LyX from crashing or becoming otherwise unusable counts as 'doing something' in my universe. Andre'
