leuven edwin wrote:
> replaces all the flat groupbox with drawn ones...
excellent.
Jürgen
leuven edwin wrote:
> sure. one possibilty would be to have fully drawn group boxes at the first
> level and try to have flat ones if they are nested to avoid clutter...
Do we have nested group boxes?
IMHO, we should use only one kind of grouping all over the place. Currently,
we have three appr
On Saturday 18 October 2008 13:52:08 Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Please ignore that one, attached is the correct one.
>
> regards Uwe
OK, I noticed you have already applied it. :-)
--
José Abílio
hi,
from introducing undo groups my terminal is usually filled up by endless
messages like
Undo.cpp(468): There is no undo group to end here
or
Undo.cpp(267): There is no group open (creating one)
should be the cause for these messages inspected or are they just innocent log
which should be visi
the attached puts it in:
void Paragraph::applyLayout(Layout const & new_layout)
which is as deep as we can get here...
edwin
jean-marc:
> I did not try it, but I do not like the approach. We do not need more
> ad-hoc solutions in the code. It is not clear to me that enumeration
> should get th
jean-marc:
> I did not try it, but I do not like the approach. We do not need more
> ad-hoc solutions in the code. It is not clear to me that enumeration
> should get their own special treatement.
>
> I'll try to propose something more constructive tomorrow.
you might like the attached better (i d
Richard Heck wrote:
> done. As Pavel noticed, these names are used in lyx2lyx, but that was a
> foolish mistake I made in an early commit, and at this point modules are
> internally identified by filename, as document classes are, not by these
> GUI names. So changing it now won't affect lyx2lyx
jean-marc wrote:
>> the attached patch resets the nesting when resetting and item/enum to
>> something else
>>
>
> I did not try it, but I do not like the approach. We do not need more
> ad-hoc solutions in the code. It is not clear to me that enumeration
> should get their own special treatement.
leuven edwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the attached patch resets the nesting when resetting and item/enum to
> something else
>
I did not try it, but I do not like the approach. We do not need more
ad-hoc solutions in the code. It is not clear to me that enumeration
should get their own spec
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any further views about these patches? Or are these OK to go now?
I think they are OK.
JMarc
>Comments are welcome,
how can anyone disagree...
fwiw, the patch here
http://leuven.economists.nl/lyx/groupboxes.zip
replaces all the flat groupbox with drawn ones...
edwin
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 03:17:55PM -0400, rgheck wrote:
>
> Any further views about the following? Or is this OK to go in now?
I abstain from voting.
Andre'
The issue was raised in another thread about the length of the module
names that appear in the GUI. If someone wants to shorten these, then
that can be done. As Pavel noticed, these names are used in lyx2lyx, but
that was a foolish mistake I made in an early commit, and at this point
modules
Any further views about the following? Or is this OK to go in now?
rgheck wrote:
The new siamltex layout causes (or reveals) some problems with how
document classes "use" modules. Originally, they didn't. The user
selects modules, not the document class. But once we modularized the
AMS clas
Any further views about these patches? Or are these OK to go now?
I wonder a bit about the size of the patches, and I have to admit that I
did not follow closely. Is this still necessary, or rather a feature
that could wait a while?
Fair questions.
Regarding size, most of this patch jus
Hi,
considering all the messages in the list I think that there is a
consensus
that it would be nice (i.e. a goal to work for) to have 1.6.0 released before
the developers meeting.
In order to do that I would like to release rc4 (the final rc) next
Thursday.
After that only ma
Máté Salát wrote:
Hello,
I have a small suggestion that would improve the look of lyx documents. On my
screen it seems like this: http://screencast.com/t/PVX7vb98.
You can see the enormous place that the ert boxes take. It is relative huge
even compared to the other box types, e.g. the refere
> I would prefer it if we could agree on some design criteria first.
sure. one possibilty would be to have fully drawn group boxes at the first
level and try to have flat ones if they are nested to avoid clutter...
Abdel wrote:
>> Edwin write:
>> the attached patch resets the nesting when resetting and item/enum to
>> something else
>>
> I like it.
ok to commit?
leuven edwin wrote:
> feel free to change it...
I would prefer it if we could agree on some design criteria first.
Jürgen
feel free to change it...
edwin
leuven edwin wrote:
> > The thing I do not like with these "flat" Group boxes is that you
> > don't see where the Group actually ends
>
> where the next one starts. there should be no ambiguities...
We do not pack everything into GroupBoxes. Look at the pane you just edited:
the postscript driver
Jürgen wrote:
> The thing I do not like with these "flat" Group boxes is that you
> don't see where the Group actually ends
where the next one starts. there should be no ambiguities...
leuven edwin wrote:
> small layout tweak to the document class panel
The thing I do not like with these "flat" Group boxes is that you don't see
where the Group actually ends. At least with the Oxygen style.
Jürgen
On 19/10/2008 17:04, leuven edwin wrote:
the attached patch resets the nesting when resetting and item/enum to something
else
personally i like this behavior much better
opinions/objections?
I like it.
Abdel.
> i did this consciously because the old layout with horizontal bar is ugly to
> see.
the current solution is even uglier, and you still get a horizontal scroll bar
with the selected items...
> although i don't persist on this assymetric view, i'm against simply
> restoring the old layout.
wh
leuven edwin wrote:
> small layout tweak to the document class panel
>
> ok?
+1
pavel
leuven edwin wrote:
> the manual tweaking of the widths now is usually not a good idea. we also get
> asymmetric widths now,
i did this consciously because the old layout with horizontal bar is ugly to
see.
> so i'd like to suggest restore the old layout as in attached
> ok?
although i don't
small layout tweak to the document class panel
ok?
latexui.patch
Description: latexui.patch
the manual tweaking of the widths now is usually not a good idea. we also get
asymmetric widths now, so i'd like to suggest restore the old layout as in
attached
ok?
edwin
modules.patch
Description: modules.patch
hi,
having document with InsetInclude, go to the context menu and try to edit
the child document. result - child is correctly opened but also marked as
dirty.
two bugs here:
1. markDirty call is the result of inset-edit lfun and is intended to mark
the _ancestor_ doc, but view->buffer point to
Pol wrote:
> How to embed lyx into konqueror?
Not possible. There's no LyX kpart.
Jürgen
How to embed lyx into konqueror?
thank you
--
Pol
the attached patch resets the nesting when resetting and item/enum to something
else
personally i like this behavior much better
opinions/objections?
edwin
From: leuven edwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:12
To: lyx-devel@lists.l
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > i made the available modules panel wider and disabled horiz scrollbar.
> > checkout whether is this convenient for your eyes, we can change it
> > otherwise.
>
> I'd prefer to get the scrollbar back. The German translations do not fit even
> into
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> i made the available modules panel wider and disabled horiz scrollbar.
> checkout whether is this convenient for your eyes, we can change it
> otherwise.
I'd prefer to get the scrollbar back. The German translations do not fit even
into this wider widget.
Jürgen
leuven edwin wrote:
> as long as one sees the full name in a tooltip when the mouse is over the
> item it wouldn't shock me.
finally i took different solution, since changing module names would need
touching lyx2lyx stuff.
i made the available modules panel wider and disabled horiz scrollbar.
ch
It turned out that finding a one-for-all command that fits all OSes and LaTeX
distributions is not so easy:
* the oolatex helper script is not included in the stock tex4ht distribution
(it has to be generated by the user), and it is not included in some major
LaTeX distributions (such as TeXLiv
Jürgen wrote:
> I've just done that.
thanks
leuven edwin wrote:
> since this is now in its own panel i'd suggest to remove the groupbox...
I've just done that.
Jürgen
as long as one sees the full name in a tooltip when the mouse is over the item
it wouldn't shock me.
something else: since this is now in its own panel i'd suggest to remove the
groupbox...
edwin
uwestoehr wrote:
> - 'htlatex $$i \'xhtml,ooffice\' \'ooffice/! -cmozhtf\' \'-coo\'
> \'-cvalidate\'', \ - 'oolatex $$i', 'oolatex.sh $$i', \
> - '/usr/share/tex4ht/oolatex $$i'],
> + 'oolatex $$i', 'oolatex.sh $$i', '/usr/share/tex4ht/oolatex $$i'],
Changing the order i
43 matches
Mail list logo
