Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Juergen, for reference, this is bug 2053.
Yes.
> Could you put the patch there?
Done.
Jürgen
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: I guess we could just use \def
Juergen> instead of \renewcommand in this case, or some [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Juergen> check.
>> Yes. A slightly less trivial fix (for 1.5) would be to have a
>> var
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: I guess we could just use \def
| Juergen> instead of \renewcommand in this case, or some [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Juergen> check.
| >> Yes. A
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> It is not really a new problem, so in theory it can wait. OTOH, I do
> not see what could go wrong with it.
Agreed to both points. It's no new problem. OTOH it is quite annoying and the
fix is really safe.
> Did you test with beamer?
Yes. I tested with beamer and w
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: I guess we could just use \def
Juergen> instead of \renewcommand in this case, or some [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Juergen> check.
>> Yes. A slightly less trivial fix (for 1.5) would be to have a
>> var
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Juergen> I guess we could just use \def instead of \renewcommand in
> Juergen> this case, or some [EMAIL PROTECTED] check.
>
> Yes. A slightly less trivial fix (for 1.5) would be to have a variable
> ItemDepth in layout files that tells how many levels of bullets can b
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> We should fix our code.
Juergen> I guess we could just use \def instead of \renewcommand in
Juergen> this case, or some [EMAIL PROTECTED] check.
Yes. A slightly less trivial fix (for 1.5)
Am Samstag, 21. Januar 2006 17:46 schrieb Juergen Spitzmueller:
> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > > The LaTeX way would be \providecommand. This does nothing if the
command
> > > already exists, otherwise it is equivalent to \newcommand.
> >
> > But this is not what we want, is it? After all, we w
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > The LaTeX way would be \providecommand. This does nothing if the command
> > already exists, otherwise it is equivalent to \newcommand.
>
> But this is not what we want, is it? After all, we want to redefine an
> already existing bullet definition.
OK, I see, you pr
Georg Baum wrote:
> > I guess we could just use \def instead of \renewcommand in this case, or
>
> some
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] check.
>
> The LaTeX way would be \providecommand. This does nothing if the command
> already exists, otherwise it is equivalent to \newcommand.
But this is not what we w
Am Samstag, 21. Januar 2006 17:16 schrieb Juergen Spitzmueller:
> I guess we could just use \def instead of \renewcommand in this case, or
some
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] check.
The LaTeX way would be \providecommand. This does nothing if the command
already exists, otherwise it is equivalent to \new
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> We should fix our code.
I guess we could just use \def instead of \renewcommand in this case, or some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] check.
A trivial fix either way.
Jürgen
> "Edwin" == Leuven, E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edwin> also, "use class defaults" does not seem to clear the
Edwin> bullets...
Indeed. This is because the classes does not propose anything
bullet-related.
JMarc
also, "use class defaults" does not seem to clear the bullets...
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 18-Jan-06 14:05
To: Leuven, E.
Cc: lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
Subject: Re: problems when switching to beamer
>>>>
> "Edwin" == Leuven, E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edwin> i don't know what the proper fix would be since on some
Edwin> switches we would like to preserve the bullets whereas on
Edwin> others (the switch to beamer) we would like to clear them.
The problem is that our code to define bullets f
15 matches
Mail list logo
