On 09-Mar-2001 Allan Rae wrote:
> The canvas abstraction shouldn't be as scary as everyone thinks it is.
> That said, I haven't given that much thought because Lars and Asger had
> been doing most of the work on that in the old tree.
Oh good ol'times. I remember the joyous cheers (with a beer)
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > I think that he's just saying that the first task is to get all GUI-stuff out
> > of the kernel. It doesn't really matter if the resultant code causes comments
> > because we're still on iteration 1 as far as t
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I think that he's just saying that the first task is to get all GUI-stuff out
> of the kernel. It doesn't really matter if the resultant code causes comments
> because we're still on iteration 1 as far as the frontends are concerned
> whilst the rest
On Friday 09 March 2001 11:48, John Levon wrote:
> What needs to be moved, what needs re-working etc.
>
> I'm really clueless on this (like most things) and would appreciate some
perspective
I think that he's just saying that the first task is to get all GUI-stuff out
of the kernel. It doesn'
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> (asymptotically) especially once we get started on non-X based systems and
> the curses/slang/whatever text system gets going.
Allan you are looking way ahead, I'm really more interested in the here and now.
Specifically, since we have nearly done the first
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Na. We're following a sensible development cycle:
> > implement something with what facilities and manpower we have
> > see some common areas
> > isolate those areas and extract to common support code
> > write all new stuff using that
> Na. We're following a sensible development cycle:
> implement something with what facilities and manpower we have
> see some common areas
> isolate those areas and extract to common support code
> write all new stuff using that better idea
> goto 1
>
Alan, just te
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 March 2001 16:43, John Levon wrote:
> > I was going to come out against encoding the different file selection
> operations
> > in the controller, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe you're right. And yes, we
> probably
> > should have a controll
On 06-Mar-2001 John Levon wrote:
> cvs add lib/images/file-open.xpm src/frontends/FileDialog.h
> src/frontends/xforms/FileDialog.C src/frontends/xforms/form_filedialog.*
> src/frontends/xforms/FormFiledialog.* src/frontends/xforms/forms/form_filedialog.fd
> src/frontends/kde/File*
>
> cvs delet
> I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do here either, but Matthias
> Ettrich really must have struck a chord with me when he complained about
> how much each frontend had to implement. Just chewing the cud here...
Did I mention that a Tk frontend would buy us Mac and Windows users?
Not to for
On Tuesday 06 March 2001 16:43, John Levon wrote:
> I was going to come out against encoding the different file selection
operations
> in the controller, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe you're right. And yes, we
probably
> should have a controller like that...
I'm not sure if it's the right thin
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Anyway the "mask" interface needs changing at some point to get
John> on well with the KDE frontend.
John> The KDE dialog expects something like :
John> "*.ps|PostScript documents (*.ps)\n*.png|PNG files (*.png)\n"
John> as a list
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> In this case, each inset controller has one View only. However, I'm picturing
> a very similar scheme for the FileDialogs, but here a single FileDialog
> Controller would control multiple Views, one for each NEW_FILE, OPEN_FILE etc
> signal emitted by
On Tuesday 06 March 2001 15:35, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > Note though that LyXFunc still launches the fileDialog explicitly,
> > rather than by emitting a signal in one "case" statement and
> > receiving the result in another. Is this to stay as it is, or
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Note though that LyXFunc still launches the fileDialog explicitly, rather
> than by emitting a signal in one "case" statement and receiving the result in
> another. Is this to stay as it is, or should it be slated for change too? Me,
> I'd vote to cha
On Tuesday 06 March 2001 15:03, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > Insert->Insert_File->Ascii_as_lines
> >
> > results in the error popup:
> >
> > ~/lines
> > No such file or directory
> >
> > Similarly for Ascii_as_paragraphs.
> >
> > Fi
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 06-Mar-2001 John Levon wrote:
> Well here some comments:
>
> -#\bind "M-f n" "buffer-open"
> +#\bind "M-f n" "file-open"
>
> Why did you have to do this? There are some lyx-server scripts using
> this command and I
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> John,
>
> Insert->Insert_File->Ascii_as_lines
>
> results in the error popup:
>
> ~/lines
> No such file or directory
>
> Similarly for Ascii_as_paragraphs.
>
> File->Open is greyed out. Can't do it.
Probably you are using an old bind f
On Tuesday 06 March 2001 12:45, John Levon wrote:
John,
Insert->Insert_File->Ascii_as_lines
results in the error popup:
~/lines
No such file or directory
Similarly for Ascii_as_paragraphs.
File->Open is greyed out. Can't do it.
Everything else seems to work fine.
Angus
On 06-Mar-2001 John Levon wrote:
Well here some comments:
-#\bind "M-f n" "buffer-open"
+#\bind "M-f n" "file-open"
Why did you have to do this? There are some lyx-server scripts using
this command and I really don't see why we should change it's name?
-#\bind "
Here it is
cvs add lib/images/file-open.xpm src/frontends/FileDialog.h
src/frontends/xforms/FileDialog.C src/frontends/xforms/form_filedialog.*
src/frontends/xforms/FormFiledialog.* src/frontends/xforms/forms/form_filedialog.fd
src/frontends/kde/File*
cvs delete lib/images/buffer-open.xpm sr
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Here we go again ...
So, Lars, what should be done about this patch? Shall I apply it?
JMarc
On 27 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Hmm, that might have been one of the mails denied for "not
> authenticated" reasons. but I know that I _wrote_ the mail.
Ah, OK, sorry.
> This is then closer to what I wanted in the beginning then (~5 years
> ago)
Well you'll find my patches often s
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 27 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | thanks
| > | john
| >
| > I never got a reason on the "buffer-open" -> "file-open" change.
|
| How do you expect me to answer questions you haven't asked
On 27 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | thanks
> | john
>
> I never got a reason on the "buffer-open" -> "file-open" change.
How do you expect me to answer questions you haven't asked ?
you REALLY should have mentioned this before I diffed 4 ti
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| thanks
| john
I never got a reason on the "buffer-open" -> "file-open" change.
IMO this is a separate issue from the guii of filedlg, and should be
in a separate patch... if done at all.
Lgb
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Monday 26 February 2001 20:06, John Levon wrote:
>
> > > Here we go again ...
> >
> > Angus, I have to put in an ed hack into fdfix.sh. Unless you
> > have bright ideas for a clean way around the problem, now I am avoiding
> > a patch
>
> Yueuchh!
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Can somebody apply this patch please.
Just make sure that it is uptodate first. (no conflicts with current
cvs).
and repost...
Lgb
On Monday 26 February 2001 20:06, John Levon wrote:
> > Here we go again ...
>
> Angus, I have to put in an ed hack into fdfix.sh. Unless you
> have bright ideas for a clean way around the problem, now I am avoiding
> a patch
Yueuchh! I suppose that this can go in for now, but this has definite
Here we go again ...
Angus, I have to put in an ed hack into fdfix.sh. Unless you
have bright ideas for a clean way around the problem, now I am avoiding
a patch
john
p.s. any reason no one applied cleanups.diff and the mathed/support patch ?
Maybe someone should take a break from flaming ;)
-
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Continuing on:
>
> This is not acceptable. Patches to .fd files only accepted as a last resort.
> This doesn't qualify.
>
> Angus
ok, whatever
john
--
"Anyone who says you can have a lot of widely dispersed people hack away on
a complicated piec
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:32:32PM +, John Levon wrote:
> > > > I thought we dodn't do C-style casts?
> > >
> > > You want me to do a typedef instead ? or is the scope resolution
> > > operator allowed in C++ style casts ?
> >
> > Change the line above to
> > Formats::FormatList::size_type
Continuing on:
This is not acceptable. Patches to .fd files only accepted as a last resort.
This doesn't qualify.
Angus
Index: src/frontends/xforms/forms/form_filedialog.C.patch
===
RCS file: form_filedialog.C.patch
diff -N form_
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> >From the xforms manuals (they really are very good):
I didn't have it around at the time of patch, my bad
> It returns the number of the current choice (0 if there is no choice).
*sigh* then why didn't they make it unsigned
anyway, Dekel's change i
On Friday 23 February 2001 16:32, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Dekel Tsur wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:19:03PM +, John Levon wrote:
> > > > Index: src/frontends/xforms/FormPreferences.C
> > > >
> > > > + if (i < 0 || (((::Formats::FormatList::size_type)i) <=
> >
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:19:03PM +, John Levon wrote:
> > > Index: src/frontends/xforms/FormPreferences.C
> > >
> > > + if (i < 0 || (((::Formats::FormatList::size_type)i) <=
> > > local_formats.size())) {
> > >
> > > I thought we dodn't do C-styl
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:19:03PM +, John Levon wrote:
> > Index: src/frontends/xforms/FormPreferences.C
> >
> > + if (i < 0 || (((::Formats::FormatList::size_type)i) <=
> > local_formats.size())) {
> >
> > I thought we dodn't do C-style casts?
>
> You want me to do a typedef instead ?
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> This is NOT a get-at-John day (by the way).
awww, that sounds like fun.
>
> The FileDialog stuff will take some digesting. It's huge!
but actually very simple in concept. Literally filedlg.C just got moved.
I suppose I should have left the KDE v
This is NOT a get-at-John day (by the way).
The FileDialog stuff will take some digesting. It's huge!
As for the rest:
Index: src/frontends/xforms/FormGraphics.C
- string const pattern = "*(ps|png)";
+ // FIXME: currently we need the second '|' to prevent mis-interpretation
+
On 23 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | As you know we also are pretty specialized f.ex. Jean-Marc does the configure
> | stuff normally. So If I see a part which is in my campus I'm fast to review
> | it, but if most of the patch is outside a
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| As you know we also are pretty specialized f.ex. Jean-Marc does the configure
| stuff normally. So If I see a part which is in my campus I'm fast to review
| it, but if most of the patch is outside and I don't know how to split it
| up I probably will g
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, John Levon wrote:
>
> I've split this apart as best I can (luckily I found a
> diff I did of FormExternal against this, so I could
> back it off with minimum of fuss)
>
> john
ugh, sorry, malformed patch. try the new attached instead
thanks
john
--
On Year 2000 complianc
I've split this apart as best I can (luckily I found a
diff I did of FormExternal against this, so I could
back it off with minimum of fuss)
john
--
On Year 2000 compliance :
"Unfortunately, it is not possible to gather similar
assurances on the compliance of viruses."
- Dr. Solomon's
On 23-Feb-2001 Angus Leeming wrote:
> Alternatively, Lars will end up having to look at everything!
Good old Lars ;)
Well I had a (REALLY) fast look at the patch and now I'm more then before
of the same opinion as Angus. There are too much different changes in that
file, to chop with and I fea
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> For the same reason. It's too much for mere mortals to cope with!
OK, I'll split it now. Thanks.
> Well different people know different bits of the code to different levels.
> For example, I feel able to comment on the FileDialog stuff which looks li
On Friday 23 February 2001 13:58, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > Come on, John! This is huge and monstrous! Can't you split it up into
> > logically independent patches:
> >
> > * configure stuff
> > * File dialog
> > * External dialog
> > * DO_USE_DEFAULT_L
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 23-Feb-2001 John Levon wrote:
>
> > It was half the size last week when it got ignored. I *could* just split it up
> > but I don't see how that helps, it just makes 10 or so ChangeLog .rej files
> > the applier has to clean up.
> >
> > It all ha
On 23-Feb-2001 John Levon wrote:
> It was half the size last week when it got ignored. I *could* just split it up
> but I don't see how that helps, it just makes 10 or so ChangeLog .rej files
> the applier has to clean up.
>
> It all has to be reviewed by *someone*. How does splitting it up mak
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Come on, John! This is huge and monstrous! Can't you split it up into
> logically independent patches:
>
> * configure stuff
> * File dialog
> * External dialog
> * DO_USE_DEFAULT_LANGUAGE
> * etc etc
>
> You might get some feedback then!
>
> Angus
Come on, John! This is huge and monstrous! Can't you split it up into
logically independent patches:
* configure stuff
* File dialog
* External dialog
* DO_USE_DEFAULT_LANGUAGE
* etc etc
You might get some feedback then!
Angus
On Friday 23 February 2001 12:46, John Levon wrote:
> The not-a
The not-attached patch fixes all sorts of stuff, and GUIIizes
the External form and FileDialog.
One thing of interest is a "fix" for the FL_TRANSIENT stuff.
This *should* ensure that iconified dialogs are brought
back up again - at least it seems a convention that
XMapWindow() has this effect. A
The patch :
http://www.movement.uklinux.net/patches/lyx/filevarious.diff.gz
implements a GUIised FileDialog, adds --with-lyx-version, and fixes various
little things.
cvs add src/frontends/xforms/forms/form_filedialog.fd
src/frontends/xforms/forms/form_filedialog.C.patch
src/frontends/xforms
52 matches
Mail list logo
