Am 19.01.2010 um 21:11 schrieb rgheck:
On 01/13/2010 01:36 PM, José Matos wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to start working on the goal of having lyx with an xml
file
format.
While just beginning to think about xml, it occurred to me that
probably
the first thing we have to do is modify th
On 01/13/2010 01:36 PM, José Matos wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to start working on the goal of having lyx with an xml file
format.
While just beginning to think about xml, it occurred to me that probably
the first thing we have to do is modify the read and write routines so
that they writ
On 01/15/2010 03:06 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
We're about ready for this.
congratz! just tried with file i'm currently editing and except TBA title
output seems to be already nicer than latex2html. cool stuff.
Thanks, Pavel. I've just fixed the title, too. Just
On Monday 18 January 2010 17:18:47 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Everytime compl_vector::operator[] needs an index that does not exist,
> it does a push_back which can/will reallocate the whole vector when a
> bigger memory block is necessary. I had the same mysterious bugs with
> tex2lyx a few mon
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What seems to be a good solution is to define a new
LyXFunc::dispatch(FuncRequest, DispatchResult) that just returns what
needs to be done, and add change the normal LyXFunc::dispatch to be a
wrapper around it that does the screen updates. This i
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> OK, I missed that. It should probably configure both when installed.
Yes. But then, we should ditch the rc.spell_lib bool, which is currently used
either for pspell or aspell (or enchant, in the patch).
Jürgen
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> What seems to be a good solution is to define a new
> LyXFunc::dispatch(FuncRequest, DispatchResult) that just returns what
> needs to be done, and add change the normal LyXFunc::dispatch to be a
> wrapper around it that does the screen updates. This is what I started
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> If enchant is configured, we can still use aspell. It is just a problem
>> of user prefs, and we can decide what the default is.
>
> The patch currently _replaces_ aspell by enchant, if enchant is installed.
OK, I missed that. It should
I tried recently to get rid og all-insets-toggle in favour of
inset-forall. This works, but I noticed at this occasion that the
performance of inset-forall is horrible, in particular because the
screen is redrawn for each inset. This is definitely wrong.
What seems to be a good solution is to def
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> If enchant is configured, we can still use aspell. It is just a problem
> of user prefs, and we can decide what the default is.
The patch currently _replaces_ aspell by enchant, if enchant is installed.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> The patch almost applies cleanly to branch and seems to work for me
>> (updated patch attached).
>
> Two issues:
>
> * we still want aspell to be the default, i.e., only use enchant if LyX is
> configured --with-enchant
If enchant is co
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> The patch almost applies cleanly to branch and seems to work for me
> (updated patch attached).
Two issues:
* we still want aspell to be the default, i.e., only use enchant if LyX is
configured --with-enchant
* SCons support is missing
Jürgen
Caolán McNamara wrote:
> For my work to get LyX to use enchant for spellchecking
> (http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/6226)
>
> I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the GNU
> General Public License, version 2 or later.
Many thanks for this, Caolán.
The patch almost a
For my work to get LyX to use enchant for spellchecking
(http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/6226)
I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the GNU
General Public License, version 2 or later.
Caolán McNamara
diff -ru lyx-1.6.4.orig/config/spell.m4 lyx-1.6.4/config/spell.m4
--
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> What is the enchant situation wrt this?
Judging from the enchant patch we received, enchant has support for ignore all
(add_to_session) and personal dictionaries (add_to_pwl, which is BTW wrong in
the proposed patch)
Jürgen
[1] http://www.lyx.org/trac/attachment/t
Abdelrazak Younes writes:
> In this case we should not use aspell 'ignore' nor 'add' feature either.
We probably need 'add for document' and 'add permanently' (or whatever).
What is the enchant situation wrt this?
JMarc
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > Note that this is an occasion for having a per-document ignore list.
> >
>
> In this case we should not use aspell 'ignore' nor 'add' feature either.
I'm not sure.
I think a per-document ignore list is a nice addition, but no replacement for
either a global "add
On 01/19/2010 09:51 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
rgheck wrote:
FYI, the accept() function isn't implemented in HunspellChecker, and so
far as I can see this is because Hunspell itself does not provide a
suitable method.
I cannot believe hunspell
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> So you want it in branch?
I would not oppose. Wait a few days. If nobody objects, put it in.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> rgheck wrote:
>> FYI, the accept() function isn't implemented in HunspellChecker, and so
>> far as I can see this is because Hunspell itself does not provide a
>> suitable method.
>
> I cannot believe hunspell is missing such a fundamental function.
> But in fact thi
Jürgen Spitzmüller writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Looks like a good idea, but maybe people should try it out and see
>> whether they like it.
>
> I like it.
So you want it in branch?
JMarc
On 01/18/2010 10:10 PM, rgheck wrote:
On 01/18/2010 01:37 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Abdel, this is for you.
The main purpose of these lfuns is the addition of two items to the
continuous
spellchecking context menu, namely "Ignore All" and "Add to personal
dictionary". These are pretty fun
On 01/18/2010 07:37 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Abdel, this is for you.
The main purpose of these lfuns is the addition of two items to the continuous
spellchecking context menu, namely "Ignore All" and "Add to personal
dictionary". These are pretty fundamental for a proper continuous spell
ch
rgheck wrote:
> FYI, the accept() function isn't implemented in HunspellChecker, and so
> far as I can see this is because Hunspell itself does not provide a
> suitable method.
I cannot believe hunspell is missing such a fundamental function.
But in fact this seems to be the case. OOo manages it
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Looks like a good idea, but maybe people should try it out and see
> whether they like it.
I like it.
Jürgen
25 matches
Mail list logo
