On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 12:25:32PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> > > So the options will exist in preferences, and in lyxrc, but you give
> > > the user no way to set it? Is that wise?
> >
> > It's wiser than exposing the option yes, seeing as a user would have to
> > set an undocumented option manually, and nobody would want to anyway.
>
> What if they had it set when they ran xforms frontend but have since
> decided they want to change back to the default? How do they uncheck
> the non-existent check-box then? [either running the xforms frontend,
> editing preferences manually or wiping preferences completely -- not
> very user-friendly]
It's not user-friendly, correct. However transition periods are just
that - transitions periods. I'm talking about LyX in 3 years time.
> > There are a lot of lyxrc options that'll end up like this, in particular
> > all the xforms ones that don't make sense for Qt.
>
> The xforms ones make sense to ignore but why cut off the other options
> that should remain common?
I don't see a point in repeating myself ...
> And if you don't succeed in getting it removed (be it this option or
> some other) will you still deny Qt users access to the option?
I intend to, yes. But I haven't seen any real discussion of my patch
yet, which I believe is better in any number of ways.
> All the handling is internal is it not? So why should the frontend
> attempt to dictate what features of the core are exposed to users?
Uh, because the core is completely irrelevant to the user ? It is
exactly the frontend that matters.
Again, I want it removed completely, replaced by my patch. In the
absence of this, I don't want this silliness polluting the UI.
regards
john
--
"If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if
it is only owned & not shared."
- St. Augustine
