On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:54:25AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> What's the status here ?
Don't know. I've had no problems with spaces lately...
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:54:25AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > 2002/09/16 Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > * mathed/math_spaceinset.[Ch]:
> > * mathed/formulabase.C:
> > * frontends/xforms/FormMathsSpace.C:
> > * frontends/xforms/forms/form_math_space.fd: fixed math
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:42:20PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> 2002/09/16Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * mathed/math_spaceinset.[Ch]:
> * mathed/formulabase.C:
> * frontends/xforms/FormMathsSpace.C:
> * frontends/xforms/forms/form_math_space.fd: fixed math
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:44:17PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> ...
> > But at some point of time we have to fix meanings.
> >
> > Does LFUN_BOLD
> >
> >(a) "make it somehow thicker"
> >(b) use \textbf
> (c) make
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
...
> But at some point of time we have to fix meanings.
>
> Does LFUN_BOLD
>
>(a) "make it somehow thicker"
>(b) use \textbf
(c) make this designate a vector
>
> ?
>
> Does LFUN_EMPH
>
>(a) "make it somehow
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:33:04PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:32:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> > | Does LFUN_BOLD
> > >
> > |(a) "make it somehow thicker"
> > |(b) use \textbf
> >
> > And we should not have an easy binding for this in normal text
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:32:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Does LFUN_BOLD
> >
> |(a) "make it somehow thicker"
> |(b) use \textbf
>
> And we should not have an easy binding for this in normal text... use
> of this is discouraged.
Indeed...
Andre'
--
Those who desire to
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:55:48PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>> Yes, but I sort-of understand Dekel's objection. "Ctrl-b for bold" is a
>> Windows meme but a strong one.
>
| I understand that too.
>
| But at some point of time we have to fix meaning
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:55:48PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Yes, but I sort-of understand Dekel's objection. "Ctrl-b for bold" is a
> Windows meme but a strong one.
I understand that too.
But at some point of time we have to fix meanings.
Does LFUN_BOLD
(a) "make it somehow thicker"
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 01:16:02PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:19:51PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Until we have context sensitive bindings, consider this patch:
>
> This is ok, but it does not really change the concept, does it?
> It saves a few keystrokes an
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:19:51PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Until we have context sensitive bindings, consider this patch:
This is ok, but it does not really change the concept, does it?
It saves a few keystrokes and takes a few "free" key bindings...
> It is REALLY REALLY WRONG to "overlo
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 01:20:39PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:04:48AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > Also, ctrl+b in math-mode should give \mathbf.
> >
> > Unless we have context sensitive keybindings this wont happen. I am not
> > going to hard-code this kind of dis
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 12:29:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 01:20:39PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > This is very bad.
> > 99.99% of the times a user presses ctrl+b in math mode, he needs \mathbf.
> > So a little bit of special code is small price to pay.
>
> But he wo
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 01:20:39PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> This is very bad.
> 99.99% of the times a user presses ctrl+b in math mode, he needs \mathbf.
> So a little bit of special code is small price to pay.
But he won't notice a difference in 99.99% of the cases.
Andre'
--
Those who desi
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:04:48AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Also, ctrl+b in math-mode should give \mathbf.
>
> Unless we have context sensitive keybindings this wont happen. I am not
> going to hard-code this kind of distinction in the LFUN_BOLD(?) handler.
This is very bad.
99.99% of the
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:00:07PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> So I agree they shouldn't be selectable in the UI, they are an internal
> detail, right ?
Yes.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:39:32PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> They insert true negative space on screen as opposed to \! which is drawn
> as blue |___|.
Right.
> Having these things is useful to correct drawings of certain compounds as
> long as LyX's own rendering differs from LaTeX's.
So
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:33:06PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 05:44:27PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > My doing... I found them in math spaces so assumed that that's what they
> > were. Were would you put them, if anywhere?
>
> Nowhere. It's likely to go if I found
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:35:39PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> What do they do ?
They insert true negative space on screen as opposed to \! which is drawn
as blue |___|.
Having these things is useful to correct drawings of certain compounds as
long as LyX's own rendering differs from LaTeX's.
An
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:12:14PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> But users who are used to some bindings do not care about consistency.
> Of course we have the right to change all bindings and menus at each
> release, but we should not underestimate the amount of grumpiness this
> will gen
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 05:35:17PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > And as this is strictly undocumented I'd like to see your cheetah that
> > managed to type \lyxnegspace ;-}
>
> Not any more... they are now on the math spaces sub-panel ;-}
What do they do ? What have you called them ?
regard
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 05:44:27PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> My doing... I found them in math spaces so assumed that that's what they
> were. Were would you put them, if anywhere?
Nowhere. It's likely to go if I found some clean solution...
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:18:50PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > Not any more... they are now on the math spaces sub-panel ;-}
>
> Not my doing hopefully. They really should not be there.
>
> Andre'
My doing... I found them in math spaces so assumed that that's what they
were. Were would
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 05:35:17PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > And as this is strictly undocumented I'd like to see your cheetah that
> > managed to type \lyxnegspace ;-}
>
> Not any more... they are now on the math spaces sub-panel ;-}
Not my doing hopefully. They really should not be ther
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:04:40PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> And as this is strictly undocumented I'd like to see your cheetah that
> managed to type \lyxnegspace ;-}
Not any more... they are now on the math spaces sub-panel ;-}
Martin
msg44990/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Hmmm... you mean those that have been using the keyboard
Martin> shortcut? All three of them :-) (and yes, I was one of them.)
Make that 4. And remember that this is the official way documented in
the tutorial.
Martin> I think
On Thursday 19 September 2002 15:17, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > - case LFUN_EMPH: handleFont(bv, cmd.argument, "mathcal");
> > > break; + case LFUN_EMPH: handleFont(bv, cmd.argument, "emph");
> > > break;
> >
> > I think you'll get angry users here
>
> Hmmm... you mean those
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 05:17:49PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Try inserting one of these beasts into a document from the math spaces
> panel, and then latex it.
Ah yes... it should probably add a \def\lyxnegspace{} in validate.
But it should be only used in the second box of macro definition
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:49:02PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:35:37PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Another thing: I ran into a bug in math_fontinset. If you have two
> > fontinsets inside each other, only the outer one calls validate.
>
> Yes. It should call
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:35:37PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Another thing: I ran into a bug in math_fontinset. If you have two
> fontinsets inside each other, only the outer one calls validate.
Yes. It should call MathNestInset::validate() as well.
> This will lead e.g. to a LaTeX process
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:18:29AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Just use LFUN_MATH_INSERT \mathbf here and drop the new LFUNs and I'd say
> it is ok until 1.4...
>
> Andre'
Done.
I did some extra clean-up in lyxfunc.C, as lines 634-663 appear to be
unnecessary now... math and non-math are han
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 08:33:28AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:11:49PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > So \mathsf is going to be unsupported by the GUI ?
>
> Yes. And so are more than 50% of all mathed features. I am not too
> concerned about one of them I personally ha
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 08:56:35AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Well, than just call MATH_INSERT "mathsf" from the panel. I would not
> notice, it would work as you want, and I won't care, as I type it anyway.
> I just do not want to change the interpretation of LFUN_SANS.
Well we agree then.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 08:16:32AM +0100, José Abílio Oliveira Matos wrote:
> > > This has got to die quickly :)
> >
> > 1.1.6 behaviour.
>
> Actually IIRC this is 0.12 or even 0.10 behaviour. (Ok, I didn't used
> previous versions on a regular basis. ;-)
In that case its time has long since
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 12:07:12PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:10:54AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Okay, here is a clean solution. With this, the math panel produces the
> \math?? font commands, while the familiar font commands for text mode
> (found on the layout m
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:10:54AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 11:30:59PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:51:39PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I don't even use any font lfun from qt math panel.
> >
> > But perhaps you shoul
On Thursday 19 September 2002 08:05, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > UGGGH !!
> >
> > This has got to die quickly :)
>
> 1.1.6 behaviour.
Actually IIRC this is 0.12 or even 0.10 behaviour. (Ok, I didn't used
previous versions on a regular basis. ;-)
> Andre'
--
José Abílio
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 11:30:59PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:51:39PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > > > I don't even use any font lfun from qt math panel.
>
> But perhaps you should. Otherwise you won't be able to select a range of
> characters and change t
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:36:38PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 12:38:47AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> > No, we don't! We should, I agree, but we don't: "emphasise" from
> > layout->char inserts mathcal into math (not textit), and "noun" does
> > mathbb, not textbb, et
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 11:57:29PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:46:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > We already have that. the math panel menus should insert the math forms,
> > the others should insert the text versions. I don't get why this is such
> > a big problem.
> >
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:46:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> I don't understand what we're arguing about - I can't see a good reason
> that the math panel should ever insert something other than the math
> forms.
Well, than just call MATH_INSERT "mathsf" from the panel. I would not
notice, it w
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 05:12:49PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andre> How would the user use \textsf within mathed if LFUN_SANS were
> Andre> changed to insert \mathsf?
>
> Does any of you know what is the difference between
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:11:49PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> So \mathsf is going to be unsupported by the GUI ?
Yes. And so are more than 50% of all mathed features. I am not too
concerned about one of them I personally have never used before.
> Do you think this is a step forwards ? I don't.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 12:38:47AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> No, we don't! We should, I agree, but we don't: "emphasise" from
> layout->char inserts mathcal into math (not textit), and "noun" does
> mathbb, not textbb, etc.
UGGGH !!
This has got to die quickly :)
regards
john
--
"Please
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:46:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > I think the GUI should both support text?? and math?? for ?? = bf, sf,
> > tt, ...
>
> We already have that. the math panel menus should insert the math forms,
> the others should insert the text versions. I don't get why this is s
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:46:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> We already have that. the math panel menus should insert the math forms,
> the others should insert the text versions. I don't get why this is such
> a big problem.
>
> I don't understand what we're arguing about - I can't see a good r
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 11:30:59PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > dispatch(FuncRequest(LFUN_INSERT_MATH, "\\mathbf"))
>
> E.g. like this.
>
> André: does this do font change on selection?
It does. It works fine.
> > > How would the user use \textsf within mathed if LFUN_SANS were change
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 05:12:49PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Does any of you know what is the difference between \textsf and
> \mathsf in math mode and can he comment on their relative usefulness?
> It is something I always wondered about.
>
> JMarc
I suppose it has to do with the s
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:11:49PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:51:39PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > > I don't even use any font lfun from qt math panel.
But perhaps you should. Otherwise you won't be able to select a range of
characters and change them to some fo
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 03:26:12PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 12:47:16PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:42:20PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>> > > Fix attached (xforms). Fixes also the textsf/te
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> How would the user use \textsf within mathed if LFUN_SANS were
Andre> changed to insert \mathsf?
Does any of you know what is the difference between \textsf and
\mathsf in math mode and can he comment on their relative usefulness?
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:51:39PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > I don't even use any font lfun from qt math panel.
>
>
> dispatch(FuncRequest(LFUN_INSERT_MATH, "\\mathbf"))
>
> basically reaches the same effect the same using a different way.
So you're telling me this will now actual
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 03:44:40PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > Because the lfun does \textbf outside math and I do not want to start with
> > this kind of "clever solutions" again.
>
> I don't even use any font lfun from qt math panel.
dispatch(FuncRequest(LFUN_INSERT_MATH, "\\mathbf")
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:38:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > why would \textsf be right and \mathsf be wrong ?
>
> Because the lfun does \textbf outside math and I do not want to start with
> this kind of "clever solutions" again.
I don't even use any font lfun from qt math panel.
How ar
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 03:26:12PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 12:47:16PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:42:20PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > Fix attached (xforms). Fixes also the textsf/textnormal thingy.
> >
> > I don't think the \tex
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 12:47:16PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:42:20PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Fix attached (xforms). Fixes also the textsf/textnormal thingy.
>
> I don't think the \textsf behaviour is broken.
Even if inserting textsf behaved correctly, wh
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 12:47:16PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:42:20PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Fix attached (xforms). Fixes also the textsf/textnormal thingy.
>
> I don't think the \textsf behaviour is broken.
>
> Andre'
Have you tried? It is for me.
./
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:42:20PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>> Fix attached (xforms).
>
| The spaces part looks ok. Try to get Lars' approval.
Your approval will suffice for now.
--
Lgb
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:42:20PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Fix attached (xforms).
The spaces part looks ok. Try to get Lars' approval.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:42:20PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Fix attached (xforms). Fixes also the textsf/textnormal thingy.
I don't think the \textsf behaviour is broken.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either
60 matches
Mail list logo
