On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Stephan Witt wrote:
>> Am 26.06.2013 um 10:41 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
>>> Yes, I prefer this version.
>>>
>>> JMarc
>>
>> That's the final patch then.
>>
>
> Should this be committed to 2.1?
Did thi
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Stephan Witt wrote:
> Am 26.06.2013 um 10:41 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
>
>> Le 26/06/2013 10:07, Stephan Witt a écrit :
>>> How does this look?
>>>
>>> bool Cursor::atFirstOrLastRowOfDocument(bool up)
>>> {
>>>Cursor dummy = *this;
>>>bool result = dum
Am 26.06.2013 um 10:41 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
> Le 26/06/2013 10:07, Stephan Witt a écrit :
>> How does this look?
>>
>> bool Cursor::atFirstOrLastRowOfDocument(bool up)
>> {
>>Cursor dummy = *this;
>>bool result = dummy.atFirstOrLastRow(up);
>>while (result && dummy.depth() >
Le 26/06/2013 10:07, Stephan Witt a écrit :
How does this look?
bool Cursor::atFirstOrLastRowOfDocument(bool up)
{
Cursor dummy = *this;
bool result = dummy.atFirstOrLastRow(up);
while (result && dummy.depth() > 1) {
dummy.pop();
result = dummy.atFirstOrLastRow(up);
Le 25/06/2013 12:19, Stephan Witt a écrit :
The value of result is overwritten until the bottom of the stack.
The value of "result" is checked on every loop.
The loop stops at the first cursor slice not atFirstOrLastRow.
Then the method returns false.
Doh! The worst part is that I read it sev
Am 25.06.2013 um 12:19 schrieb Stephan Witt :
> Am 25.06.2013 um 11:30 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
>
>> Le 24/06/2013 17:13, Stephan Witt a écrit :
>>> +bool Cursor::atFirstOrLastRowOfDocument(bool up)
>>> +{
>>> + Cursor dummy = *this;
>>> + bool result = dummy.atFirstOrLastRow(up);
>>>
Am 25.06.2013 um 11:30 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
> Le 24/06/2013 17:13, Stephan Witt a écrit :
>> +bool Cursor::atFirstOrLastRowOfDocument(bool up)
>> +{
>> +Cursor dummy = *this;
>> +bool result = dummy.atFirstOrLastRow(up);
>> +for(; result && dummy.depth(); dummy.pop())
>> +
Le 24/06/2013 17:13, Stephan Witt a écrit :
+bool Cursor::atFirstOrLastRowOfDocument(bool up)
+{
+ Cursor dummy = *this;
+ bool result = dummy.atFirstOrLastRow(up);
+ for(; result && dummy.depth(); dummy.pop())
+ result = dummy.atFirstOrLastRow(up);
+ return
Am 24.06.2013 um 18:59 schrieb Scott Kostyshak :
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Stephan Witt wrote:
>> Am 24.06.2013 um 08:34 schrieb Scott Kostyshak :
>
>>> The patch I posted was wrong. When in an inset, if you go up, you go
>>> to the beginning of the buffer. Using LFUN_INSET_BEGIN_SELEC
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Stephan Witt wrote:
> Am 24.06.2013 um 08:34 schrieb Scott Kostyshak :
>> The patch I posted was wrong. When in an inset, if you go up, you go
>> to the beginning of the buffer. Using LFUN_INSET_BEGIN_SELECT is more
>> reasonable, but is that what we want? Do we
Am 24.06.2013 um 08:34 schrieb Scott Kostyshak :
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Stephan Witt wrote:
>> Am 20.06.2013 um 18:00 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
>>
>>> 20/06/2013 16:37, Stephan Witt:
Yes. Originally it was:
if (!atFirstOrLastRow) {
do_something();
}
>>>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Stephan Witt wrote:
> Am 20.06.2013 um 18:00 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
>
>> 20/06/2013 16:37, Stephan Witt:
>>> Yes. Originally it was:
>>>
>>> if (!atFirstOrLastRow) {
>>> do_something();
>>> }
>>>
>>> now it is:
>>>
>>> if (atFirstOrLastRow) {
>>> if (lyxr
Am 20.06.2013 um 18:00 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
> 20/06/2013 16:37, Stephan Witt:
>> Yes. Originally it was:
>>
>> if (!atFirstOrLastRow) {
>> do_something();
>> }
>>
>> now it is:
>>
>> if (atFirstOrLastRow) {
>> if (lyxrc.mac_like_cursor_movement) {
>> scotts_doing();
>> }
>> // d
20/06/2013 16:37, Stephan Witt:
Yes. Originally it was:
if (!atFirstOrLastRow) {
do_something();
}
now it is:
if (atFirstOrLastRow) {
if (lyxrc.mac_like_cursor_movement) {
scotts_doing();
}
// do nothing - Pavels preference
} else {
do_something();
}
Ok?
What would happen with
Am 20.06.2013 um 16:09 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
> 20/06/2013 13:01, Stephan Witt:
>> Am 20.06.2013 um 12:33 schrieb Stephan Witt :
>>
>>> Am 20.06.2013 um 10:37 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
>>>
What does OSX do?
>>>
>>> It moves to the very end of the last paragraph and does the s
20/06/2013 13:01, Stephan Witt:
Am 20.06.2013 um 12:33 schrieb Stephan Witt :
Am 20.06.2013 um 10:37 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
What does OSX do?
It moves to the very end of the last paragraph and does the same while
extending the selection.
This could be part of our mac-like cursor
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> This is what I was suggesting (and is implemented in the patch). It is
>> clearly not popular though.
>
> You really find this useful?
I do, but I recognize that I'm strange in this sense.
Scott
Am 20.06.2013 um 12:33 schrieb Stephan Witt :
> Am 20.06.2013 um 10:37 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
>
>> What does OSX do?
>
> It moves to the very end of the last paragraph and does the same while
> extending the selection.
>
>> This could be part of our mac-like cursor handling.
>
> Yes,
Am 20.06.2013 um 10:37 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes :
> What does OSX do?
It moves to the very end of the last paragraph and does the same while
extending the selection.
> This could be part of our mac-like cursor handling.
Yes, indeed. It should be part of it, IMHO.
Stephan
>
> JM arc
>
>
Kornel Benko wrote:
> > But that does not explain why don't you simply use ctrl+shift+end.
>
> Have you tried? It feels uhm complicated.
Yes I have. It didn't look so bad to me, bad as said in the selection
scenario the proposal makes more sense compared to just movement.
Pavel
What does OSX do? This could be part of our mac-like cursor handling.
JM arc
Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Should we do begining-of-line when in the first lien to be consistent
>as well?
>
>This is what I was suggesting (and is implemented i
Am Donnerstag, 20. Juni 2013 um 00:42:41, schrieb Pavel Sanda
> Kornel Benko wrote:
> > It is not only move the cursor, but also selecting parts of text.
>
> I agree that for selecting text it feels more natural (basically
> because one tends to be more careful about each keystroke compared
> to
Kornel Benko wrote:
> It is not only move the cursor, but also selecting parts of text.
I agree that for selecting text it feels more natural (basically
because one tends to be more careful about each keystroke compared
to the situation when you just move in the document).
But that does not expla
Am Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2013 um 23:56:09, schrieb Pavel Sanda
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > This is what I was suggesting (and is implemented in the patch). It is
> > clearly not popular though.
>
> You really find this useful? Single hit of end key bring me to the end while
> there is no comparable
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> This is what I was suggesting (and is implemented in the patch). It is
> clearly not popular though.
You really find this useful? Single hit of end key bring me to the end while
there is no comparable jump back to original row in case I hit down arrow more
times than actua
I actually don't mind that much if the behavior changes. It may be nice to
have a setting for this, though (even though most users will not change the
default).
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Should we do begining-of-line when in the first lien to
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Should we do begining-of-line when in the first lien to be consistent as well?
This is what I was suggesting (and is implemented in the patch). It is
clearly not popular though.
Scott
Kornel Benko wrote:
> being consistent, that is). ;)
Consistent with what?
I just tried OpenOffice and M$ Word, both are consistent not to do it by
default.
(None terminal editors I use do this by default, but that's not fair comparison
in similar way as gmail is not co be counted ;)
Should we d
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Montag, 17. Juni 2013 um 23:02:48, schrieb Pavel Sanda
>
>> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
>> > It looks like this might be a personal preference.
>
>>
>
>> Most probably ;)
>
>
>
> +1
Good to know. Thanks for the confirmation.
Scott
Am Montag, 17. Juni 2013 um 23:02:48, schrieb Pavel Sanda
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > It looks like this might be a personal preference.
>
> Most probably ;)
+1
> I wouldn't welcome this kind of behaviour.
> Pavel
And I like it (being consistent, that is). ;)
Kornel
signature.asc
Des
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> It looks like this might be a personal preference.
Most probably ;) I wouldn't welcome this kind of behaviour.
Pavel
This is consistent with gedit and gmail. The LFUN_DOWN_SELECT part is
consistent with Qt Creator; the rest is not, except breaking the
selection. It is not consistent with Libre Office, except for breaking
the selection.
It looks like this might be a personal preference.
Any thoughts?
Scott
00
32 matches
Mail list logo
