> OK, so I'll try to fix the remaining part of #6985 before.
This and all other multirow-related bugs are now fixed so that I put it in.
regards Uwe
On 01/11/2010 19:26, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
At least I know I
can fix things in case I break them.
i'm happy to hear this :))
please on the top of the splitting issues, can you have look on imho
related bugs 6896, 6453?
I really don't see the lik be
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>> At least I know I
>>> can fix things in case I break them.
>>>
>> i'm happy to hear this :))
>> please on the top of the splitting issues, can you have look on imho
>> related bugs 6896, 6453?
>>
>
> I really don't see the lik between r34054 and these two bug
On 01/11/2010 19:15, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Am 01.11.2010 18:19, schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Did I respond?
Not yet ;-)
The problem in #6997 is not a general issue, it is just a problem
with the table dialog because we
don't read the full table parameters each time we move. So that is a
bug and i
Am 01.11.2010 18:19, schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Did I respond?
Not yet ;-)
The problem in #6997 is not a general issue, it is just a problem with the
table dialog because we
don't read the full table parameters each time we move. So that is a bug and it
is fixable. But as
Juergen said else
On 01/11/2010 18:36, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
At least I know I
can fix things in case I break them.
i'm happy to hear this :))
please on the top of the splitting issues, can you have look on imho related
bugs 6896, 6453?
I really don't see the lik between r3
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> At least I know I
> can fix things in case I break them.
i'm happy to hear this :))
please on the top of the splitting issues, can you have look on imho related
bugs 6896, 6453?
i guess its not new breakage but rather unfinished menu displaying code...
>I can stop thi
On 01/11/2010 03:10, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Am 01.11.2010 02:19, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
> However, you introduced a new feature, multirows, and then report bug
> #6985, #6958, #6999 and then you see that you don't like the apply
> scheme and you report bug #6998, #6997, #7001 and then also bu
On 31/10/2010 23:08, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
No, but note that if we do not manage to solve the tabular issues with
multirow before 2.0 (which is not unlikely), I will vote for
deactivating
multirow support. We cannot ship a defect feature.
I'm not responsible for the new tabular Apply/OK scheme. A
On 31/10/2010 17:10, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Am 31.10.2010 16:07, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
The only issue I see right now is that one cannot set a multirow via
the
dialog What else do you see that is not yet also in LyX 1.6.x?
Yes, but this issue is quite tricky. I'm not even sure it is solvabl
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> So, wouldn't it be logical that you first try to fix the multirow bugs
> and possibly the multicolumn bugs such that they work properly, then
> get the dialog to work before extending the multirow feature anymore,
> and introducing more ui in the table dialog, which
Am 01.11.2010 02:19, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
> However, you introduced a new feature, multirows, and then report bug
> #6985, #6958, #6999 and then you see that you don't like the apply
> scheme and you report bug #6998, #6997, #7001 and then also bug #7000
> for the quite related multico
> I'm not responsible for the new tabular Apply/OK scheme. As you say, the
> problem lies within this scheme, we need to revert this scheme not
> aprticular table feature. We have much more new table features that suffer
> from this scheme, see
> http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/6997
>
> I committed
Am 31.10.2010 17:42, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
We need Abdel's help here. He has imlemented the new Apply/OK scheme and
I'm sure he knows a solution. I mean it works for setting multicolumns so
it should work also for multirows using the same tabular UI<-> Inset
communication. Abdel?
As sa
Am 31.10.2010 um 17:10 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
> Am 31.10.2010 16:07, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
>
>>> The only issue I see right now is that one cannot set a multirow via the
>>> dialog What else do you see that is not yet also in LyX 1.6.x?
>>
>> Yes, but this issue is quite tricky. I'm not even
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> We need Abdel's help here. He has imlemented the new Apply/OK scheme and
> I'm sure he knows a solution. I mean it works for setting multicolumns so
> it should work also for multirows using the same tabular UI <-> Inset
> communication. Abdel?
As said, I'm not sure. The curren
Am 31.10.2010 16:07, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
The only issue I see right now is that one cannot set a multirow via the
dialog What else do you see that is not yet also in LyX 1.6.x?
Yes, but this issue is quite tricky. I'm not even sure it is solvable without
a complete rewrite of the tabu
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > The table dialog is so broken currently.
>
> The only issue I see right now is that one cannot set a multirow via the
> dialog What else do you see that is not yet also in LyX 1.6.x?
Yes, but this issue is quite tricky. I'm not even sure it is solvable without
a complete re
> The table dialog is so broken currently.
The only issue I see right now is that one cannot set a multirow via the dialog What else do you see
that is not yet also in LyX 1.6.x?
> I would prefer if we put our energy in fixing that instead of adding even
more features.
I basically agree with
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> We implemented support for multirows the following way:
>
> \multirow{ncols}{width}{content}
>
> but \multirow supports this scheme:
>
> \multirow{ncols}[struts]{width}[offset]{content}
>
> The attached patch adds support for the offset. It is a fileformat change.
>
> Suppor
We implemented support for multirows the following way:
\multirow{ncols}{width}{content}
but \multirow supports this scheme:
\multirow{ncols}[struts]{width}[offset]{content}
The attached patch adds support for the offset. It is a fileformat change.
Support for struts is not planned because th
21 matches
Mail list logo
