Bo Peng wrote:
>> > 130 parameters is sheer madness. :-)
>>
>> +1, sorry Bo...
>
> What are you sorry for? I am not going to validate all 130 parameters
> right now, and there will be the GUI designer's decision how to choose
> and present the most important parameters, and leave others may be t
Bo> This is what I tried to do at first. However, in lyx, every line
Bo> starts a new paragraph and you will get an extra newline between
Bo> your program code. This is hard-coded to lyx and I do not see a
Bo> good solution to this problem.
Adding a special layout flag to avoid this would be less
> 130 parameters is sheer madness. :-)
+1, sorry Bo...
What are you sorry for? I am not going to validate all 130 parameters
right now, and there will be the GUI designer's decision how to choose
and present the most important parameters, and leave others may be to
a simple texteditor.
Right
On Mon, 07 May 2007 11:06:10 +0100
José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 May 2007 06:41:56 Bo Peng wrote:
> > > It is a lot of work to validate ~ 130 parameters!!
> >
> > The validators are there (in InsetListingsParams.h/cpp now, class
> > parValidator) and I (or someone with some
On Monday 07 May 2007 06:41:56 Bo Peng wrote:
> > It is a lot of work to validate ~ 130 parameters!!
>
> The validators are there (in InsetListingsParams.h/cpp now, class
> parValidator) and I (or someone with some time to spare?) will add
130 parameters is sheer madness. :-)
If necessary choo
Bo Peng wrote:
> 1. validation: wrong arguments will be passed to latex, If Abdel can
> implement a property editor GUI, validation can do done over there.
This is important.
But don't count on me in the next weeks. I won't have time, sorry.
Abdel.
> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> i only took a look at the result (not the code), and it made me
>> wonder what exactly is gained by this?
Bo> A non-ERT way to use listings package.
Hmm
>> wouldn't you want to set "code listing" or something like that in
>> the layout box an
> 1. validation: wrong arguments will be passed to latex, If Abdel can
> implement a property editor GUI, validation can do done over there.
This is important.
It is a lot of work to validate ~ 130 parameters!! I guess I can do
that before 1.5.0 because validation is arguably the most importa
On Sunday 06 May 2007 20:02:03 Bo Peng wrote:
> Two problems remains:
>
> 1. validation: wrong arguments will be passed to latex, If Abdel can
> implement a property editor GUI, validation can do done over there.
This is important.
> 2. option value with ". I quote params_ with "" in .lyx file,
On Sunday 06 May 2007 20:14:50 Bo Peng wrote:
> Anyway, I agree with Georg to put lstinputlisting there, although
> JMarc seems to prefer 'external material'.
A long term goal, that dates back to inset external creation, is the merging
of external inset with graphics and with include insets.
So
Whether or not InsetListings should be
collapsible is open to discussion.
My reasons for using InsetCollapsable are that program listings
1. can be long (maybe over several pages) so CLOSE mode can be usable.
2. can be short or inlined (lstinline) so INLINE mode can be usable.
3. can float.
i only took a look at the result (not the code), and it made me wonder
what exactly is gained by this?
A non-ERT way to use listings package.
implementation wise i find it strange to have code in a collapseable
inset (i also tried ERT, as in attached, and found that this is pretty
similar ui w
Attached please find a much improved InsetListings patch. The
implementation can now be reviewed...
I will explain more about the params issue.
Herbert's patch has a big dialog which handles around 10 commonly used
parameters. I tried but I was not able to port it to qt4, due to my
limited know
Bo Peng wrote:
Attached please find a much improved InsetListings patch. The
implementation can now be reviewed...
i only took a look at the result (not the code), and it made me wonder
what exactly is gained by this?
some impressions:
implementation wise i find it strange to have code in a
I propose a deal ;-) :
You promise to fix all remaining issues (if any) WRT your features and
then this feature can go in (AFAIAC of course). Straight out of my head,
here are some bugs related to your work:
If you promise to change my simple QEditBox to property editors (like
what qt designer
Bo Peng wrote:
> Attached please find a much improved InsetListings patch. The
> implementation can now be reviewed...
>
> Changes:
>
> Better organized InsetListingsParams functions
> Autotools support
> InsetListings now derives from InsetERT
> Use LISTINS_CODE
> Code cleaning
> and more...
l
Bo Peng wrote:
Dear all,
Attached please find a much improved InsetListings patch. The
implementation can now be reviewed...
Changes:
Better organized InsetListingsParams functions
Autotools support
InsetListings now derives from InsetERT
Use LISTINS_CODE
Code cleaning
and more...
Looks much
17 matches
Mail list logo
