Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schreef:
Le 18 avr. 09 à 19:48, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :
Is the attached ok ?
It removes the EDITABLE enum, and makes the editable() function
return a bool.
A lot of editable() functions were not necessary anymore when they
have a hasSettings() functions.
I pl
Le 18 avr. 09 à 19:48, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :
Is the attached ok ?
It removes the EDITABLE enum, and makes the editable() function
return a bool.
A lot of editable() functions were not necessary anymore when they
have a hasSettings() functions.
I planned to answer at some point
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>Is the attached ok ?
Is strikes me a good step. I detected one failure only:
> Index: src/insets/InsetIndex.h
> ===
> --- src/insets/InsetIndex.h (revision 29316)
> +++ src/insets/InsetIndex.h (
If I add the hasDialog() function, then I should/could remove the
editable() function, right ?
Yes. And you could maybe rename the function to hasSettings()?
Is the attached ok ?
It removes the EDITABLE enum, and makes the editable() function return a
bool.
A lot of editable() function
Vincent van Ravesteijn writes:
>> So the situation might be bit more complicated than I thought.
> Yes, at least it is very unclear. At first sight I'd have no clue what
> "isActive()" would mean, and wat IS_EDITABLE is and so forth..
If you can think of a good separation of meanings, now would
So what's the difference between isActive() and editable() ==
HIGHLY_EDITABLE ? Might there be a difference for closed
InsetCollapsables ?
Not really. A collapsable changes its editability when collapsed.
Or so I think :) But now that I think of it, I am not really sure.
For example, a closed
Le 16 avr. 09 à 17:07, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW a écrit :
Can I just suggest that these be changed e.g. to IN_DIALOG and
ON_SCREEN, if that's more or less what they mean? I've never been
able to remember what EDITABLE vs HIGHLY_EDITABLE means.
That sounds like a good suggestion.
It seems t
>>> Can I just suggest that these be changed e.g. to IN_DIALOG and
>>> ON_SCREEN, if that's more or less what they mean? I've never been
>>> able to remember what EDITABLE vs HIGHLY_EDITABLE means.
>> That sounds like a good suggestion.
>
>It seems to me that handling too booleans corresponding
Vincent van Ravesteijn writes:
> Richard Heck schreef:
>> Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>>> I propose the following to finish up the recoding of
>>> LFUN_INSET_SETTINGS.
>>>
>>> - The getStatus() handling of LFUN_INSET_SETTINGS is handled in
>>> Inset and it is now checked whether the argument (if
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Ok ?
Could you wait just a bit with this until my indices patch is in?
Jürgen
Richard Heck schreef:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
I propose the following to finish up the recoding of
LFUN_INSET_SETTINGS.
- The getStatus() handling of LFUN_INSET_SETTINGS is handled in Inset
and it is now checked whether the argument (if one) corresponds to
the current inset.
- To dec
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
I propose the following to finish up the recoding of LFUN_INSET_SETTINGS.
- The getStatus() handling of LFUN_INSET_SETTINGS is handled in Inset
and it is now checked whether the argument (if one) corresponds to the
current inset.
- To decide the status we need a
I propose the following to finish up the recoding of LFUN_INSET_SETTINGS.
- The getStatus() handling of LFUN_INSET_SETTINGS is handled in Inset
and it is now checked whether the argument (if one) corresponds to the
current inset.
- To decide the status we need an updated editable() mechanism
13 matches
Mail list logo
