Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 03:00:21PM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
| > > I guess we should have a "default" language. We already have an
| > > "ignore" language, I do not know what the difference is.
| >
| > Agreed too! The default language in LaTeX terms is
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 03:00:21PM +0200, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> > I guess we should have a "default" language. We already have an
> > "ignore" language, I do not know what the difference is.
>
> Agreed too! The default language in LaTeX terms is the language which my
> LaTeX installation has as
On 19-May-2000 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dekel> Right now checking if a document has only one language is a
> Dekel> costly operation. However, I can add a boolean member variable
> Dekel> to class Buffer, which will store if the buf
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dekel> Right now checking if a document has only one language is a
Dekel> costly operation. However, I can add a boolean member variable
Dekel> to class Buffer, which will store if the buffer is
Dekel> multi-lingual or not (the variable will
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 02:53:04PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And Dekel, while I am at it, would it be possible to avoid displaying
> the language when there is only one language used (or when current
> language is document langu
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dekel> I think that the addition of vertical lines for visualizing the
Dekel> paragraph depths, greatly reduced the need for your patch.
Dekel> Also, the problem with your patch is that it can create a very
Dekel> long layout list. I've alre
Dekel hi.
The main objection I have to this suggestion is that it takes a lot of space in
the toolbar. My approach takes about 60 pixels from the toolbar.
Maybe it would be somehow possible to have one toolbar element which spans both
menus... but then that might be too confusing. I am not sure
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 02:09:00AM +0300, Gady Kozma wrote:
>
> The discussion of my patch seems to have died out more-or-less.
>
> So, should I clean it up and bring it up to date for inclusion?
>
> I can sense that the patch is not very popular... but not exactly why. Is it
> the approach or
The discussion of my patch seems to have died out more-or-less.
So, should I clean it up and bring it up to date for inclusion?
I can sense that the patch is not very popular... but not exactly why. Is it
the approach or the coding style? Or something else that I missed?
Gady
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dekel> There is enough room for 5 lines. However, when you are using
Dekel> nested environments, the left margin usually increases, so this
Dekel> shouldn't be a problem.
Right.
>> - the lines can potentially collide with the '!' of margin
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 03:27:46PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> That's great too. I applied it and it really looks good. Small nits:
>
> - when using deep depth, could there be cases where the lines and the
> text collide? The lines could maybe be changed to use less space (if
> thei
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | + 4*i, offset +
Lars> row_ptr->height - 1 - (i-next_depth-1)*3, | +
Lars> LColor::footnoteframe);
Lars> You use the wrong LColor. Add a new logical LColor for this.
I'll do that.
JMar
Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| + 4*i, offset + row_ptr->height - 1 -
|(i-next_depth-1)*3,
| + LColor::footnoteframe);
You use the wrong LColor.
Add a new logical LColor for this.
Lgb
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is a good idea, and can be implemented easily (at least
>> drawing the lines). I've attached a patch that does it (only as a
>> reference! [The patch is against CVS, and will not works with
>> 1.1.4]).
That's great too. I applied it
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 06:27:21PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > Another idea, maybe even more useful would be to have a vertical line
> > in the left margin showing how the grouping is currently. It could be
> > possible then to click somehow on this line to increase/decrease depth.
>
> This is a
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 03:40:51PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Gady" == Gady Kozma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shalom Gady!
Are you aware that I've added Hebrew support to LyX 1.1.5 ?
I'll be happy if you can help me improving it...
> Gady> B) The menu now displays the depth too.
>I that really a good idea? It is better to keep similar things
> together. What I'd rather see is a hierarchical menu (Sections,
> Lists...).
Yes, enumerate and itemize are no longer close...
But it is much easier that way, nontheless. I'm using it all the time and it is
a big relief
> "Gady" == Gady Kozma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gady> This patch against 1.1.4fix1 redoes the layout menu in the
Gady> toolbar.
Gady> A) The menu is alphabetaized.
I that really a good idea? It is better to keep similar things
together. What I'd rather see is a hierarchical menu (Sectio
Gady Kozma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This patch against 1.1.4fix1 redoes the layout menu in the toolbar.
|
| A) The menu is alphabetaized.
| B) The menu now displays the depth too. For example, suppose you have an
| enumerate of depth 1, with the enclosing environment a proof. The box in the
This patch against 1.1.4fix1 redoes the layout menu in the toolbar.
A) The menu is alphabetaized.
B) The menu now displays the depth too. For example, suppose you have an
enumerate of depth 1, with the enclosing environment a proof. The box in the
toolbar will show "Enumerate in Proof" (it was s
20 matches
Mail list logo
