On May 29, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Of course they can be wide. But it's maybe all about taste. And I
haven't seen a wide drawer yet in any Mac up. Usually they are
vertically layouted and only are 1/3 of the window width or so.
Moving it to the same size of the main windo
> "Stefan" == Stefan Schimanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> Moreover we should finally put in the Drawer patch itself. I
Stefan> attached it again. I tried it with Qt 4.2.3 and 4.3rc1. Either
Stefan> looks well. You cannot close the drawer anymore with the mouse
Stefan> (only via menu
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
> Needing 2 OKs to commit.
+1 for the drawer patch.
I let you Mac people decide on the View-Source patch (but I'm fine with
reverting my changes).
Jürgen
Of course they can be wide. But it's maybe all about taste. And I
haven't seen a wide drawer yet in any Mac up. Usually they are
vertically layouted and only are 1/3 of the window width or so.
Moving it to the same size of the main window somehow looks
strange. But as I said, just my taste.
> "Stefan" == Stefan Schimanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> And I haven't seen a wide drawer yet in any Mac up. Usually
Stefan> they are vertically layouted and only are 1/3 of the window
Stefan> width or so. Moving it to the same size of the main window
Stefan> somehow looks strange.
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Drawers can be very wide, and with current Macs having wide screens,
it strikes me as appropriate to use up the screen width with the
source view rather than screen height. (See attached screenshot.)
On reflection, perhaps drawers aren't the best way to go; maybe a
fl
Drawers can be very wide, and with current Macs having wide
screens, it strikes me as appropriate to use up the screen width
with the source view rather than screen height. (See attached
screenshot.)
On reflection, perhaps drawers aren't the best way to go; maybe a
floating window would b
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Are you insulting me?
I'd never dare to do that, Monsieur :-)
:-)
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Are you insulting me?
I'd never dare to do that, Monsieur :-)
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
OK, having read Bennett's comment I understand why you did this Jurgen
but I don't think Mac users will agree in general with this change. The
logical position of the view source is at the bottom or at the top.
So, to fix this bug I think we sh
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> OK, having read Bennett's comment I understand why you did this Jurgen
> but I don't think Mac users will agree in general with this change. The
> logical position of the view source is at the bottom or at the top.
>
> So, to fix this bug I think we should just let it be
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > The source view is a drawer as well??? Does that really make sense? I
> > mean normally tex code is meant to be 80 chars wide and should be shown
> > like that.
>
> What is the link between line width and the dialog being a drawer?
> Can't a drawer be set at the bottom?
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
The source view is a drawer as well??? Does that really make sense? I
mean normally tex code is meant to be 80 chars wide and should be
shown like that.
What is the link between line width and the dialog being a drawer?
Can't a drawer be set a
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
The source view is a drawer as well??? Does that really make sense? I
mean normally tex code is meant to be 80 chars wide and should be shown
like that.
What is the link between line width and the dialog being a drawer?
Can't a drawer be set at the bottom?
Abdel.
The source view is a drawer as well??? Does that really make sense? I
mean normally tex code is meant to be 80 chars wide and should be
shown like that.
Stefan
Author: spitz
Date: Mon May 28 09:17:47 2007
New Revision: 18537
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/18537
Log:
* src/frontends
15 matches
Mail list logo
