On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 10:17:55PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >I could use tooltips I suppose ... a minor point anyway.
>
> Yes, but it is all these minor points that make a polished UI.
But I suspect we have a long time until 1.3.final :)
> >hmm ? It's a hint - frontends are free to ignore it. This makes sense to
> >me.
>
> I thought that all toolbar in KDE apps were supposed to be setable by
> the user as floating top, bottom, whatever... However, we could have
right, but it is up to the app to store the state of the session ...
> Toolbar "one"
> Enabled 1 #this one is shown by default
> ...
> End
Well yes this makes sense ...
> >Making me check the magic type and see if it's one that might require a
> >buffer is ugly.
>
> You do not have to check for that. getStatus tells you whether a lyxfunc
> is enabled or not, whatever the reason (no buffer, readonly, ...)
I don't get you. I am trying to /expand/ a menu. This will crash if
there's no buffer currently : see expand:ExportFormats
besides, the menu code should not know about buffers, readonly etc. -
the core should provide only enabled/disabled info for this.
(as it does now afaik)
> Yes, but we will have to eventually find a solution.
couldn't we connecto to Angu's updateParagraph signal ? That seems good
enough doesn't it ? Or does it not do what it sounds like ?
> >I can't spot the middle ground you're talking about ?
>
> I do not say I won't change my opinion, I am arguing.
>
> Convince me.
I would if I was sure myself ...
I certainly think we can take a signal approach for say, lastfiles. It's
easy to do and not intrusive I don't think.
I think what I should d o is implement qt fully working with the current
code, and see where the problems are ...
But first I have to make xforms compile again
john
--
"Way back at the beginning of time around 1970 the first man page was
handed down from on high. Every one since is an edited copy."
- John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
