Uwe Stöhr wrote:
No, this is not the way it works! I implemented that we now use the
wrapfig-package for wrap floats. We can therefore provide two new
parameters. These are optional and after a discussion on the list
(see the one about my Box-patch some days ago) and in bug 3242 I
implemented the current dialog layout, with the checkboxes so that
optional parameters are really optional. I therefore also built this
in the box-dialog.
these are still optional. the only thing i removed was the signal/slot
enabling/disabling code in guiwrap. these are now connected in
designer.
the other thing is that i put the widgets in a gridlayout so that they
align correctly. everybody who checks the screenshots in enrico's will
agree i think that the new layout looks better
the behavior of the dialog hasn't changed. the overhang and linespan are
still optional. if they are not checked they are not passed on. i didn't
touch this part of the code.
if you think that changing a label (ie removing the "optional") changes
the behavior of the dialog, well then you're confused.
moreover, i changed the labels on purpose, we never write that
parameters are optional (they often are). this should be clear from the ui.
But anyway, I absolutely don't like that you changed the dialog
without asking before and/or reading why it looks currently like
this.
it is also clear that you didn't bother to try the dialog since you are
suggesting that the behavior changed
you're also suggesting that i am some renegade vandal who goes around
destroying other peoples work, whereas i am just cleaning up after you.
even though i might have overseen something, i asked you to clarify and
offered to make sure that things were in a good state. this in a
perfectly civilized tone. something with which you seem to have trouble
with.
so am i amused by your offensive and stupid rant? well, not really.
and this:
With your "cleanup" you just reverted my complete work that
costs me some hours to get it in this state!
is bullshit.
