Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 11:52:07AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
| >
| > I want to apply this patch, objections?
|
| I don't understand the new code. Why is latinkeys.bind needed ?
| Wouldn't the code be much simpler when we move to storing the text
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| You've been busy!
|
| why not leave the handleKeyFunc() call outside the if-block?
Probably since I want to get rid of it completely.
| Index: src/BufferView_pimpl.C
| @@ -2648,7 +2644,18 @@ bool BufferView::Pimpl::Dispatch(kb_acti
| case LFUN_
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 11:52:07AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
> I want to apply this patch, objections?
I don't understand the new code. Why is latinkeys.bind needed ?
Wouldn't the code be much simpler when we move to storing the text in
Unicode ? (we just need to translate the keysym t
You've been busy!
why not leave the handleKeyFunc() call outside the if-block?
Index: src/BufferView_pimpl.C
@@ -2648,7 +2644,18 @@ bool BufferView::Pimpl::Dispatch(kb_acti
case LFUN_HUNG_UMLAUT:
case LFUN_CIRCLE:
case LFUN_OGONEK:
- owner_->getLyXFunc()->ha
On 15-May-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> I want to apply this patch, objections?
Well there is as most of the time a lot of reformatting in your patch
but I got the meaning ;) This is the patch for the latinX handling, isn't
it? I did not see anything (after a FAST look) which I didn't lik
