proof and I have to
Enrico> decrease the environment depth to get out of it.
I think it is how it is supposed to work.
Enrico> The bug described in indent.lyx seems to be gone.
Thanks for testing. Patch applied.
JMarc
sters please (see the file indent.lyx from
> pol).
The patch seems to work. However, I follow the instructions in bug 2445,
and after BAR and ENTER, I select Standard. What now I type seems to be
still part of the proof and I have to decrease the environment depth to
get out of it.
The bug descri
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2445
This is what I think to be the right fix for this bug. I contains
martin's fixed for 1.5, but adds another part.
I want that in 1.4.3. Testers please (see the file indent.lyx from
pol).
JMarc
Index: src/paragraph_funcs.C
===
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:58:07AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Why do we cycle round when we increment depth beyond the max ?
>
> Why not?
> I find that pretty nice.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:49:29PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> No, but you have to be persistent and have good arguments.
Another argument against it: if you accidentally move one level too much
in it goes ALL the way back - very annoying. e.g.
1. ssdsadsadsad
(a) sdsadsadsd
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:49:29PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> No, but you have to be persistent and have good arguments.
Well I do my best ;)
> | (I'm still trying to come to terms with Tabular Material Stuff Contents
> | or whatever it is)
>
> I have so far not seen any arguments tha
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:50:17PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > | Hmm you always fall silent when I try to discuss minor (but nonetheless
| > | important) UI changes with you :(
| >
| > Could it be that I have no good opinions on this?
|
| We
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:50:17PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Hmm you always fall silent when I try to discuss minor (but nonetheless
> | important) UI changes with you :(
>
> Could it be that I have no good opinions on this?
Well, you're the boss so when you say "no" I have to live
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:22:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | (any reason we have two sets of keybindings too ?)
| >
| > No. Feel free to remove the cua bindings.
|
| Hmm you always fall sil
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:22:57PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | (any reason we have two sets of keybindings too ?)
>
> No. Feel free to remove the cua bindings.
Hmm you always fall silent when I try to discuss minor (but nonetheless
important
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (any reason we have two sets of keybindings too ?)
No. Feel free to remove the cua bindings.
--
Lgb
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:58:07AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Why do we cycle round when we increment depth beyond the max ?
>
> Why not?
It's very odd given that the other way doesn't do the same. It's also
very very irritating. Imagine :
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Why do we cycle round when we increment depth beyond the max ?
Why not?
I find that pretty nice.
--
Lgb
Why do we cycle round when we increment depth beyond the max ?
john
--
"Take the ideas you find useful. Try not to get hung up on the labels."
- Jonathan S. Shapiro
(grmpf) ChangeLog:
2002-01-29 Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* text2.C: fix the problem of allowing on-screen increasing
the environment depth indefinitely.
--
Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Helsinki University of Technology
Department of Surveying
P.O. Bo
I don't think I'm knowledgable enough about this, people. For those who are,
try this.
Angus
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: FIX: unlimited environment depth bug
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:02:31 +0200
From: Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Martin
rtin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FIX: unlimited environment depth bug
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, Jan
29, 2002 at 09:32:29AM +0200
X-Operating-System: Linux geo9.hut.fi 2.2.14
I can't reproduce this yet, but I've seen it a few times.
I frequently use two levels of enumeration, with plain, ert, and
comment a level further down. Lyx often either loses count or
incorrectly identifies a lower level of text (e.g., nested plain text
appears as a comment, even though it
18 matches
Mail list logo
