On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Allan Rae wrote:
> Yes, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Will update again and
> commit today.
Haven't had time after all. Feel free to make the one line change
yourself.
Allan. (ARRae)
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:15:37PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> > +2003-01-27 Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > +
> > + * insetinclude.C (loadIfNeeded): included files might be under
> > + VCS control so we need loadLyXFile() not readFile() for that.
>
Hello,
I haven't been on the list for a long time, so sorry if the same
question has been already asked. (I couldn't find anything on
bugzilla).
A few years ago I've made kmap file for serbocroatian.
Last time I used it in 1.1.6fix4 it worked fine.
Today I have installed 1.3.0 (and then just to
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:15:37PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> +2003-01-27 Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> +
> + * insetinclude.C (loadIfNeeded): included files might be under
> + VCS control so we need loadLyXFile() not readFile() for that.
> +
Are you still planning to apply this at som
Title: Öйú½ð¶¦ÉÌÎñÍø
×𾴵ĸºÔðÈË:
ÐÂÄêºÃ!
Öйú½ð¶¦ÉÌÎñÍø www.vxyv.com
³ÏÕ÷ÓÑÇéÁ´½Ó Ãâ·ÑΪÄú·¢²¼¸÷ÀàÐÅÏ¢,µç×ÓÉÌÎñÈí¼þ³ÏÕ÷´úÀíÉÌ.
QQÔÚÏß×Éѯ:21677192 5189773 LQ:55028 55027 PP:12721676 4234627
Öйú½ð¶¦ÉÌÎñÍø
µã»÷Í˶©¡ïÓʼþ²ÉÓùú¼ÊÉÌÎñ¿ì³µ·¢ËÍ,½âÊÍȨÊô·¢¼þÈËË
> We do not have an over-write-mode :-)
>
> --
> Lgb
That explains it. How many people would actually want such a thing. I can't
think of the last time I used it deliberatly. As John said, that functionality
is a holdover from years ago.
Cheers
Koz.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:35:27AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | To do what ? It has no purpose in LyX
>
> Would be more logical to use it to toggle over-write-mode
I certainly don't want to implement this. I've always thought it was a
stupid idea ever since graphical displays became co
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:10:31PM +1300, Michael A. Koziarksi wrote:
|
| > > I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
| > > menu.
| >
| > of course I'm an oddity, I use a kinesis keyboard (http://www.kinesis-
| > ergo.com/image
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:21:36PM +1300, Michael A. Koziarksi wrote:
> It has very little purpose in other applications too. However surely the
> default behaviour should follow the principle of 'least-surprises'?
Maybe you're right.
john
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:06:02PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> The patch does not apply cleanly to current CVS
The patch was made several weeks ago for 1.3CVS. I should have made
another one
> and it does not really follow LyX coding rules.
I have read the 'coding rules' and I would ap
> To do what ? It has no purpose in LyX
>
> john
It has very little purpose in other applications too. However surely the
default behaviour should follow the principle of 'least-surprises'?
Cheers
Koz.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:10:31PM +1300, Michael A. Koziarksi wrote:
> > I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
> > menu.
>
> of course I'm an oddity, I use a kinesis keyboard (http://www.kinesis-
> ergo.com/images/500-blk.jpg) and the insert key is right below X. S
> I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
> menu.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd prefer the insert key to behave as
expected.
of course I'm an oddity, I use a kinesis keyboard (http://www.kinesis-
ergo.com/images/500-blk.jpg) and the insert key is right below
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:46:29AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:26PM +, John Levon wrote:
> |
> | > Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
> | > or is anyone else seeing that the closing s
I wonder what people think of making the Insert key open the Insert
menu.
john
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:26PM +, John Levon wrote:
|
| > Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
| > or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart quote no longer
| > looks like a quote in current CVS with Qt frontend, but l
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:03:26PM +, John Levon wrote:
> Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
> or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart quote no longer
> looks like a quote in current CVS with Qt frontend, but like 2 Z's ??
Just confirmed - it happens with cle
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:11:14AM +1100, Amir Michail wrote:
> We tried to write a LyX 1.3.0 template for DRT, but found
> that the source no longer compiles with CXXFLAGS=-finstrument-functions.
> This used to work with LyX 1.2.1. Here is the error (with Qt frontend):
>
> /usr/include/string.h
Hi.. based on suggestions from this list, I upgraded to gcc3.2 and
recompiled QT 3 and then compiled lyx 1.3.0. I still can't startup
Lyx.. gives the following error:
src/lyx: relocation error: src/lyx: undefined symbol: _ZN5QChar4nullE
I'm using gcc/g++ 3.2.1 with Qt 3.0.7 on a Debian powerpc pl
Dear developers,
if you use a math-macro in 1.1.6 it appears sometimes without its
brackets in 1.3.0, which surprisingly works sometimes. I have isolated a
case where it doesn't work, with a calligraphic font. Attached is a
minimum 1.1.6 file. It doesn't happen with lyx 1.2.3
all the best,
P
This problem was reported earlier and I've "confirmed" it.
I don't know if it's a lyx-bug or a latex-bug, here's the rundown:
This file works: http://www.md.kth.se/~chr/lyx/bugs/option-clash/works.lyx
This file fails: http://www.md.kth.se/~chr/lyx/bugs/option-clash/fails.lyx
With the error that
Hi,
We tried to write a LyX 1.3.0 template for DRT, but found
that the source no longer compiles with CXXFLAGS=-finstrument-functions.
This used to work with LyX 1.2.1. Here is the error (with Qt frontend):
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src -I./../ -I../../boost -isystem
/usr/X11R6/includ
Is this some totally surreal bug in some changes I've made,
or is anyone else seeing that the closing smart quote no longer
looks like a quote in current CVS with Qt frontend, but like 2 Z's ??
john
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Could somebody update it to show that lyx 1.3.0 has been released? Who
> has the right to do that?
At the same time, the person could perhaps add a small footer saying
who's responsible for the content? (for Lyx 1.3.1...) :)
/C
--
Christian Ridder
Claus Hentschel wrote:
Hello, Claus. You've been busy!
> Embedded eps-images cannot be viewed inside Lyx with Qt-3. Anything
> went wrong trying to convert them from eps to xpm! (Using the
> Xforms-Lyx eps images will be converted into ppm format w/o any
> error)
Cluas, I would suggest removing
Could somebody update it to show that lyx 1.3.0 has been released? Who
has the right to do that?
JMarc
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:06:02PM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> Seems to work though. I just applied some modification of this patch.
Aerm. Could you please verify it works and close the bug?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they d
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:46:54AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> > If we are no longer on freeze, could anyone have a look at bug686? The
> > patch is pretty small and easy to understand.
>
> I guess no one is interested in such small improveme
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0600, Bo Peng wrote:
> If we are no longer on freeze, could anyone have a look at bug686? The
> patch is pretty small and easy to understand.
I guess no one is interested in such small improvement right now. I will
just patch my own tree and wait.
--
Bo Peng
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:22:17PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> deleting pit 0x8b6bcb0
>
> lately.
>
> Is that intentional behaviour?
ooops, looks like some of my debug stuff got in too.
fixed
john
I get lots of
deleting pit 0x8b6bcb0
deleting pit 0x8f20de0
deleting pit 0xa7edbd8
deleting pit 0xa174470
deleting pit 0x8afe050
deleting pit 0x8ba2760
deleting pit 0x8ba27c8
lately.
Is that intentional behaviour?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will
According to the current README I've removed XForms 0.89.6
and tried to use XForms 1.0 and/or Qt!
A new Cygwin release with a new gcc 3.2 compiler. The new xforms 1.0 as well
as the new choice to use the Qt frontend and the new lyx 1.3.0 sources: Too
much changes in a too short time 8((
S
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> btw... If I were a harddisk... I would prefere gcc 3.2...
And then you will feel bored all day, waiting for someone to write on
your lonely sectors...
JMarc
> "Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[I add lyx-devel in cc because I'd like some discussion]
Helge> I have tested your patch with the following document structure:
Helge> A main document (dtest.lyx) includes dtest2.lyx from the same
Helge> directory, and d1/d1.lyx and d2/d2
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 03:09:12PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> It seems that the benefits that were present with gcc 2.7.x are just
> not present anymore, so I think we should just get rid of the pragma.
>
> I have a patch ready, should I commit it?
I think so.
> btw... If I were a hardd
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| gcc 2.95 Without #pragma
|textdata bss dec hex filename
| 5856658 1828572 53284 7738514 761492 src/lyx
| -rwxr-xr-x1 poenitz users141053566 Feb 13 13:33 src/lyx
|
| gcc 2.95 With #pragma
|textdata bss dec
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | As sort of a surprise there is _no_ noticable difference
> | (less than 2 seconds on a 12-minute run).
>
> Speed is not the issue, binary size is.
>
> run size on the one with and without pragma.
Without #pragma
text
In the last few days, the Sourceforge statistics for preview-latex
exhibited quite large page views, particularly considering that we are
in a time of relative quietness (ok, the last release managed over a
1000 hits, about double the current interest, but still...).
It's pretty obvious where thi
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:01:56PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > That is very dependant on the compiler used.
| > (version of gcc)
|
| As sort of a surprise there is _no_ noticable difference
| (less than 2 seconds on a 12-minute run).
Speed is
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:01:56PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> That is very dependant on the compiler used.
> (version of gcc)
As sort of a surprise there is _no_ noticable difference
(less than 2 seconds on a 12-minute run).
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gai
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:06:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I'll have a go and post results after two clean recompiles
>
> You are using gcc 2.95, right?
Yes.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either on
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:27:26PM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
| > Well. I suppose killling all '#pragma' lines would be sufficient for the
| > test...
|
| I'll have a go and post results after two clean recompiles
You are using gcc 2.95, right?
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > The question is if we want to do it or not?
| > (I think yes.)
|
| I think yes, too, but I would have checked wheter it makes difference
| first.
That is very dependant on the co
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:27:26PM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> Well. I suppose killling all '#pragma' lines would be sufficient for the
> test...
I'll have a go and post results after two clean recompiles
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:13:39PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> The question is if we want to do it or not?
> (I think yes.)
I think yes, too, but I would have checked wheter it makes difference
first.
Well. I suppose killling all '#pragma' lines would be sufficient for the
test...
Andr
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:27:49AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Have you checked #pragma implementation/interface?
|
| Good point. But looks ok.
|
| > (I have a patch to remove all of those...)
|
| As script?
No... I had a script when I crea
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:27:49AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Have you checked #pragma implementation/interface?
Good point. But looks ok.
> (I have a patch to remove all of those...)
As script?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, n
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:14:49PM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> While it is possible to change the selection in insert-reference with
> the up/down keys, this cannot be done until the mouse is moved into the
> scroll-window (is that the right term?). This is odd and frustrating.
>
> If
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Andre Poenitz wrote:
|
| > On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
| >> Ugh. I was afraid of that. Guess I'll just wait for the next
| >> release of the Developer Tools.
| >>
| >> At least 1.2.3 works!
| >
| > I just renamed th
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
>> Ugh. I was afraid of that. Guess I'll just wait for the next
>> release of the Developer Tools.
>>
>> At least 1.2.3 works!
>
> I just renamed that 'type_info' field to 'ref_type_info'.
> Does that help?
A
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:48:56PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> I'm edging towards LFUN_CITATION_SHOW and LFUN_CITATION_APPLY as a
>> first step towards the most general LFUN_DIALOG_SHOW and
>> LFUN_DIALOG_APPLY. Do these names sound reasonable or does anybody
>> have a be
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Pedro Tejedor wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> I downloaded and compiled recently lyx 1.3. It produces an error when I
>
> - choose interline space to be one and a half
> - use dvips option
> - use a table with a figure in one cell, and a rotated text in the other
> - try to co
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:48:56PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I'm edging towards LFUN_CITATION_SHOW and LFUN_CITATION_APPLY as a first
> step towards the most general LFUN_DIALOG_SHOW and LFUN_DIALOG_APPLY. Do
> these names sound reasonable or does anybody have a better idea?
Sounds reasonabl
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:57:10AM -0700, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
> Ugh. I was afraid of that. Guess I'll just wait for the next release of
> the Developer Tools.
>
> At least 1.2.3 works!
I just renamed that 'type_info' field to 'ref_type_info'.
Does that help?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to giv
54 matches
Mail list logo
