Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-21 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Martin Vermeer wrote: > Hmmm, I shudder at your tinkering with the rectangle > arguments in insettext. This is, actually, the most obvious part to me. For fixed width insets, maxWidth() is reduced and has to be used for drawing > I know that if I did this, I > would introduce 17 new intractabl

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-21 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 10:03:38AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > Attached is an almost-working solution > > The attached patch fixes all remaining issues. > > Opinions? José? > > Jürgen Hmmm, I shudder at your tinkering with the rectangle arguments in insett

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-21 Thread José Matos
On Saturday 21 April 2007 9:31:23 am Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > José Matos wrote: > > The patch seems simple, does it fixes both bugs? > > Yes. Put it in. > Jürgen -- José Abílio

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-21 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
José Matos wrote: > The patch seems simple, does it fixes both bugs? Yes. Jürgen

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-21 Thread José Matos
On Saturday 21 April 2007 9:03:38 am Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > Attached is an almost-working solution > > The attached patch fixes all remaining issues. > > Opinions? José? > > Jürgen The patch seems simple, does it fixes both bugs? -- José Abílio

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-21 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Attached is an almost-working solution The attached patch fixes all remaining issues. Opinions? José? Jürgen Index: src/insets/insetbase.h === --- src/insets/insetbase.h (Revision 17877) +++ src/insets/in

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-20 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > The problem is that we need to know the minimum size of the contents. > And this is the maximum size of the inset buttons that are inside. Those > are incompressible. I see. > > (I tried to disable wide() if hasFixedWidth() is true, but failed). > > No, this is not rela

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-20 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: OK, I won't insist then. But nevertheless you obviously found the cuplprit for the two bugs, most notably for the assert. Do you have an idea how to fix these without removing the hasFixedWidth() check? The problem is that we need to kno

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-20 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > OK, I won't insist then. But nevertheless you obviously found the cuplprit for the two bugs, most notably for the assert. Do you have an idea how to fix these without removing the hasFixedWidth() check? (I tried to disable wide() if hasFixedWidth() is true, but failed

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-20 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
Martin Vermeer wrote: On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:11:14 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: It breaks WYSIWYM experience for boxes. You mean WYSIWIG experience I guess? No, WYSIWYM. I'd say that it favour WISIWYM on the contrary. IMO, this is no good rea

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-20 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:11:14 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) wrote: > Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > > It breaks WYSIWYM experience for boxes. > > > > You mean WYSIWIG experience I guess? > > No, WYSIWYM. > > > I'd say that it favour WISIWYM on > > the contrary. IMO, this is no good

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-20 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > It breaks WYSIWYM experience for boxes. > > You mean WYSIWIG experience I guess? No, WYSIWYM. > I'd say that it favour WISIWYM on > the contrary. IMO, this is no good reason to consume screen space. I don't think so. Especially when placing two minipages with 50% c

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-20 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Comment? Objection? On what? To what? This. It breaks WYSIWYM experience for boxes. You mean WYSIWIG experience I guess? I'd say that it favour WISIWYM on the contrary. IMO, this is no good reason to consume screen space. Other opinions

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-19 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > >> Comment? Objection? > > > > On what? To what? > > This. It breaks WYSIWYM experience for boxes. Jürgen

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-18 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
Martin Vermeer wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:42:41 +0200 Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMO, the hasFixedWidth() property has strictly nothing to do with with on-screen LyX representation. Comment? Objection? On what? To what? This. Abdel. Index: insetbox.C

Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-18 Thread Martin Vermeer
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:42:41 +0200 Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMO, the hasFixedWidth() property has strictly nothing to do with with > on-screen LyX representation. > > Comment? Objection? On what? To what? - Martin

[PATCH] Fix bug 2884 and 3437

2007-04-18 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
IMO, the hasFixedWidth() property has strictly nothing to do with with on-screen LyX representation. Comment? Objection? Abdel.