On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> My suggestion was that the per-file disabling should be done on the basis of
> a per-user UUID we generate at installation, or some such time (and, as
> Scott suggests, can re-generate if need be). This is not perfect. If someone
> had your U
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 03:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
>> Should I make (four) buttons for the table toolbar? I'm not sure if
>> this feature is worth adding 4 buttons for. I don't see why a user
>> would prefer to use a button instead of a keybo
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 03:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Wrong patch.
Sorry about that. Correct patch attached.
Thanks, Scott
From 43c8594ac5ac0eba2c2dcc224dd8921b19498a25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Scott Kostyshak
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 05:2
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there anyone running TeXLive 2012?
> I got report that KOMA-Script v.2 layout does not work in 2.0.5 while it
> worked 2.0.4.
> I was not able reproduce, but I run TeXLive 2011. Can anyone check?
I can reproduce with 2.0.x vs. 2.0.
Hello Juergen
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Liviu Andronic wrote:
>> With latest trunk I can no longer replicate this problem. But I think
>> I spotted a further issue with the layout arguments:
>> - The user can insert two identical argument insets in the same par
Hi,
is there anyone running TeXLive 2012?
I got report that KOMA-Script v.2 layout does not work in 2.0.5 while it worked
2.0.4.
I was not able reproduce, but I run TeXLive 2011. Can anyone check?
Pavel
On 12/21/2012 10:33 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 21/12/2012 16:23, Richard Heck a écrit :
My suggestion was that the per-file disabling should be done on the
basis of a per-user UUID we generate at installation, or some such time
(and, as Scott suggests, can re-generate if need be). This i
Le 21/12/2012 16:23, Richard Heck a écrit :
My suggestion was that the per-file disabling should be done on the
basis of a per-user UUID we generate at installation, or some such time
(and, as Scott suggests, can re-generate if need be). This is not
perfect. If someone had your UUID, they could p
On 12/21/2012 06:28 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
... Let's move the discussion to the devel list ...
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 21/12/2012 11:32, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:07 AM, Liviu Andronic
wrote:
I would suggest that we _always_ have a warning when, after opening
On 12/21/2012 03:54 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
Should this change (and a number of other recent commits) bump the
layout file format. And should the layout2layout script be updated ?
Yes, that one does look like it changes layout format.
In which respect?
In the sense t
On 12/21/2012 03:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Attached is an updated patch.
I added the bindings alt- and alt- for move-column
support. These were unbound before.
I thought about suggesting introducing PARAGRAPH_MOVE_{RIGHT,LEFT} but
now I think that would be unnecessary abstraction.
Should I
On 12/21/2012 03:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Attached is an updated patch.
I added the bindings alt- and alt- for move-column
support. These were unbound before.
I thought about suggesting introducing PARAGRAPH_MOVE_{RIGHT,LEFT} but
now I think that would be unnecessary abstraction.
Should I
Le 21/12/2012 11:56, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :
Does anybody remember the reason why we strictly disallow nesting of
bibliographies (the only style we do this btw)?
static bool changeDepthAllowed(Text::DEPTH_CHANGE type,
Paragraph const & par, int max_depth)
{
i
... Let's move the discussion to the devel list ...
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 21/12/2012 11:32, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:07 AM, Liviu Andronic
>> wrote:
>>> I would suggest that we _always_ have a warning when, after opening a
>>> LyX file, the user activate
Does anybody remember the reason why we strictly disallow nesting of
bibliographies (the only style we do this btw)?
static bool changeDepthAllowed(Text::DEPTH_CHANGE type,
Paragraph const & par, int max_depth)
{
if (par.layout().labeltype == LABEL_BIBLIO)
Richard Heck wrote:
> > Should this change (and a number of other recent commits) bump the
> > layout file format. And should the layout2layout script be updated ?
>
> Yes, that one does look like it changes layout format.
In which respect? Do we also consider backwards direction in layout forma
Attached is an updated patch.
I added the bindings alt- and alt- for move-column
support. These were unbound before.
I thought about suggesting introducing PARAGRAPH_MOVE_{RIGHT,LEFT} but
now I think that would be unnecessary abstraction.
Should I make (four) buttons for the table toolbar? I'm no
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
>>> Is my bracket-scoping poor style? I do this to make sure i don't use
>
>> you never see this in
>> the LyX code. So maybe use it during development and remove it for what you
>> commit?
>
> +1
I removed it.
>
>
>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 12/08/2012 02:11 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what the expected behavior is when multirows are involved.
>> Suppose that the user is going to do a move row down
>> (PARAGRAPH_MOVE_DOWN).
>> In particular:
>> (1) What if th
19 matches
Mail list logo
