rgheck wrote:
> So far as I can see, this only changed
> lib/examples/localization_test.lyx. Was that intended?
Yes. Open the file in LyX, and you will see the listings TOC inset.
Georg
On 04/18/2012 02:46 PM, b...@lyx.org wrote:
Author: Georg Baum
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:44:33 +0200
New Commit: 8c45279696f3ed17cc40ee31dbbd352f815a094d
URL:
http://git.lyx.org/?p=lyx.git;a=commit;h=8c45279696f3ed17cc40ee31dbbd352f815a094d
Log:
Let lyx2lyx create a proper TOC inset
Now that \
Kornel Benko wrote:
> It is nice working, but does not translate "Listings" (value of
> lstlistlistingname).
This is because lib/layouttranslations does not yet contain the newly
translated names. If you update this file with your latest translations of
sk.po (IIRC cmake supports that already),
Richard Heck wrote:
> Perhaps, but I'm not sure I fully understand what your patch was
> supposed to do. So here's a patch of mine that changes the layout names.
> Can you tell me if it works right?
If you change InsetInclude::layoutName() as well it works fine. The patch
itself did only support
Le 18/04/2012 15:45, Richard Heck a écrit :
On 04/18/2012 07:02 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard,
Do you have reasons to belive that I should not do that?
I guess if it works now, it's fine.
What did we do to fix this?
The getLayout machinery used to be as InsetFlex level, then at
On 04/18/2012 09:25 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 15/04/2012 15:01, Richard Heck a écrit :
In connection with bug #8124, a patch for which is attached below as
0001*, I am wondering whether it is worth also worth doing what is shown
in 0002*. Do we know for sure that any request for LFUN_I
On 04/18/2012 07:02 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard,
Do you have reasons to belive that I should not do that?
I guess if it works now, it's fine.
What did we do to fix this?
Richard
Le 15/04/2012 15:01, Richard Heck a écrit :
In connection with bug #8124, a patch for which is attached below as
0001*, I am wondering whether it is worth also worth doing what is shown
in 0002*. Do we know for sure that any request for LFUN_INSET_MODIFY
that InsetBox receives is really intended
From: lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org [lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org] on behalf of Jean-Marc
Lasgouttes [lasgout...@lyx.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 6:50 AM
>Don't bother with it. OTOH, your gentle nudge made me commit your patch
>:) I just removed the new useless parameter 'backwards' of putSelectionA
Richard,
Do you have reasons to belive that I should not do that?
JMarc
>From 92107a368a2ff8c6249f46429f84e633bc0d4e30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:58:28 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Remove workaround that is not useful anymore
---
src/Text2.cpp |
Le 17/04/2012 23:28, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
From: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [lasgout...@lyx.org]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:21 AM
I wonder whether in replaceAll whether the putSelectionAt call should be
removed. It seems to be overridden by the subsequent setCursor.
I've been meaning to giv
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 04/17/2012 04:45 PM, Richard Heck wrote:
>
>> On 04/17/2012 02:56 PM, Georg Baum wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Heck wrote:
>>>
>>> I didn't notice it before (probably since we don't get diffs), but it
might be worth having the layout name h
Le 18/04/2012 02:09, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
No reason, just copy&pasted from InsetFlex.
Ahh, this is the special code for InsetFlex when there is not the
explicit Flex:: prefix. Richard, what is the current situation in this
respect? Is the fall-back to non-prefixed name still needed ?
layo
13 matches
Mail list logo
