> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> This cleans up a
John> couple of things mentioned 2 weeks ago.
Since it seems that consensus was that the patch is OK, I applied it.
JMarc
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:42:09AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> >
> > On 26-Feb-2001 Dekel Tsur wrote:
> >
> > > If you use the filter frequently then it is better to define an appropriate
> > > converter in the preferences dialog.
> >
> > Yes but I find
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:42:09AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 26-Feb-2001 Dekel Tsur wrote:
>
> > If you use the filter frequently then it is better to define an appropriate
> > converter in the preferences dialog.
>
> Yes but I find it sometimes usefull to just try to run some filters
On 26-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> No, but you ran away to reenable code that we really don't want
> reenabled.
Well don't put me in that "we"! (shouldn't that have been a "me")
> I have a feeling you are commenting on my comments just to put in
> another comment.
Should I comment to
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 26-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > Yes, we should. Especially when the features are redundant or near to
| > be reduntant. How much do you thing it'd take to make the export code
| > to the same as the sendto code?
|
| I didn't say it wou
On 26-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Yes, we should. Especially when the features are redundant or near to
> be reduntant. How much do you thing it'd take to make the export code
> to the same as the sendto code?
I didn't say it would be not a good idea to remove LyXSendto and move it
to
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 26-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > That is just a way of saying: "Delete this we are not going to
| > support it anyway."
|
| ahh I didn't get that!
|
| > And where do you see the KDE/QT support for this or GTK?
| > _all_ xforms dependan
On 26-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> That is just a way of saying: "Delete this we are not going to
> support it anyway."
ahh I didn't get that!
> And where do you see the KDE/QT support for this or GTK?
> _all_ xforms dependant code is going to frontends/xforms eventually.
so we shoul
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 26-Feb-2001 John Levon wrote:
| >
| > Because it is 4x the work to port it to GUI, for each frontend ...
|
| Ahhh, then we should really leave it in GUI and not port it to GUII
| (and may be some other Forms too), so we don't have any work to do at
On 26-Feb-2001 John Levon wrote:
>
> Because it is 4x the work to port it to GUI, for each frontend ...
Ahhh, then we should really leave it in GUI and not port it to GUII
(and may be some other Forms too), so we don't have any work to do at
all, as it's already there!
Jürgen
--
-._-._-
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 23-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> > And you feel that is the right way to support this feature in LyX?
>
> It is just a custom filter on different output-types which you can use
> on the fly. I think we can have some things which are us
On 26-Feb-2001 Dekel Tsur wrote:
> If you use the filter frequently then it is better to define an appropriate
> converter in the preferences dialog.
Yes but I find it sometimes usefull to just try to run some filters and
sometimes the params of the call change so I would have to reedit it
in p
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 09:55:08AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 23-Feb-2001 Dekel Tsur wrote:
>
> > Why. What can you do with the form that you can't with the new export code?
>
> I don't have to edit preference files and I can do it on the fly with
> whatever filter I want!
If you use t
On 23-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Why... you don't use it anyway.
That's not true! I use it quite a lot (it's just that we here still use
1.0.4 ;) so I didn't notice this in the 1.1.x version.
> And why can't this be handled by the more general export code instead?
Well if you can s
On 23-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> And you feel that is the right way to support this feature in LyX?
It is just a custom filter on different output-types which you can use
on the fly. I think we can have some things which are usable generally!
Also you (f.ex) can use a2ps to make what
On 23-Feb-2001 Dekel Tsur wrote:
> Why. What can you do with the form that you can't with the new export code?
I don't have to edit preference files and I can do it on the fly with
whatever filter I want!
Jürgen
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
D
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 23-Feb-2001 John Levon wrote:
| >
| > How ? What's the code path that reaches MenuSendto() ?
| > Where is LFUN_MENUSENDTO handled ?
|
| Ohh I see what you mean! Someone disabled this! I really want
| this enabled and will do so as soon as I've some
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 23-Feb-2001 John Levon wrote:
> >
> > How ? What's the code path that reaches MenuSendto() ?
> > Where is LFUN_MENUSENDTO handled ?
>
> Ohh I see what you mean! Someone disabled this! I really want
> this enabled and will do
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 23-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > I'd say yes... I'll let others decide that one.
| > (I have never used it...)
|
| Definitively NO! Why should we remove this functionallity?
| I use it for example to print series of letters out of LyX!
On 23-Feb-2001 John Levon wrote:
>
> How ? What's the code path that reaches MenuSendto() ?
> Where is LFUN_MENUSENDTO handled ?
Ohh I see what you mean! Someone disabled this! I really want
this enabled and will do so as soon as I've some time!
Jürgen
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 23-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> > I'd say yes... I'll let others decide that one.
> > (I have never used it...)
>
> Definitively NO! Why should we remove this functionallity?
> I use it for example to print series of letters out of Ly
On 23-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I'd say yes... I'll let others decide that one.
> (I have never used it...)
Definitively NO! Why should we remove this functionallity?
I use it for example to print series of letters out of LyX!
Jürgen
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This cleans up a couple of things mentioned 2 weeks ago.
This is ok.
| p.s. can we remove LyXSendTo.C ???
I'd say yes... I'll let others decide that one.
(I have never used it...)
Lgb
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 23-Feb-2001 John Levon wrote:
| >
| > This cleans up a couple of things mentioned 2 weeks ago.
|
| This seems good to me, Lars what do you say?
Just give me time to have a look.
Lgb
On 23-Feb-2001 John Levon wrote:
>
> This cleans up a couple of things mentioned 2 weeks ago.
This seems good to me, Lars what do you say?
Jürgen
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Dr. Jürgen VignaE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Italienallee 13/
This cleans up a couple of things mentioned 2 weeks ago.
john
p.s. can we remove LyXSendTo.C ???
--
On Year 2000 compliance :
"Unfortunately, it is not possible to gather similar
assurances on the compliance of viruses."
- Dr. Solomon's RIP
Index: src/ChangeLog
===
26 matches
Mail list logo
