Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, I'd prefer a single function that does the check in any case.
Abdelrazak> This is difficult to do for now without a cleanup of
Abdelrazak> LyXFunc or a reordering of object initialisation on start
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 07:27:28AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andre> I recently wondered whether the current Cursor is The Right
> Andre> Thing.
>
> Andre> It has 'model' parts (points to a place in a doc), yet also
> Andre>
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:30:17AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >I guess in the long run this is not ideal...
>
> /me neither. I prefer simple class that do simple thing good. Cursor
> should not be a gateway to everything in the LyX memory structure.
It was a fairly uniform improvement ove
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Actually, what this shows is that menus-before-expand and
>> menus-after-expand should be two different classes (the first one
>> should not know about status and the second one should not know
>> about special menuitem kinds),
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, I'd prefer a single function that does the check in any case.
Abdelrazak> This is difficult to do for now without a cleanup of
Abdelrazak> LyXFunc or a reordering of object initialisation on start
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes, I'd prefer a single function that does the check in any case.
Abdelrazak> This is difficult to do for now without a cleanup of
Abdelrazak> LyXFunc or a reordering of object initialisation on start
Abdelrazak> up. This is
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you want
Abdelrazak> a single function that does the check in any case? If yes,
Abdelrazak> I am OK with that too and I don't think that there
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 03:17:34PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak> - expandFormats needs to know if there is an opened
Abdelrazak> document currently and for the need of Exporter functions.
Abdelrazak> - expandFloatListInsert() and expandFloatInsert() need
Abd
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> I recently wondered whether the current Cursor is The Right
Andre> Thing.
Andre> It has 'model' parts (points to a place in a doc), yet also
Andre> conveys 'view' information in .bv().
Cursor is good in some cases, and dociterator
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Indeed. This is no advantage. Better pass stuff down as arguments
| instead of relying on globals.
|
| theApp->xxx is indeed current_view in disguise.
I invested years of my life to get rid of that...
--
Lgb
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 03:17:34PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Abdelrazak> - expandFormats needs to know if there is an opened
> Abdelrazak> document currently and for the need of Exporter functions.
> Abdelrazak> - expandFloatListInsert() and expandFloatInsert() need
> Abdelrazak> some fl
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>
>>> For example, on a multipart document it would be a good idea to navigate
>>> to whatever part of the document. So you don't want to restrain the
>>> MenuBackend to be usable only for the currently visible Buffer but f
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
For example, on a multipart document it would be a good idea to navigate
to whatever part of the document. So you don't want to restrain the
MenuBackend to be usable only for the currently visible Buffer but for
any Buffer that you pass to it.
See ht
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> For example, on a multipart document it would be a good idea to navigate
> to whatever part of the document. So you don't want to restrain the
> MenuBackend to be usable only for the currently visible Buffer but for
> any Buffer that you pass to it.
See http://www.lyx.o
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> No, add() do need to know what the current Buffer is, it
Abdelrazak> just need some FuncRequest status via
Abdelrazak> theApp->lyxFunc().getStatus().
Yes, but getStatus knows what the current
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> No, add() do need to know what the current Buffer is, it
Abdelrazak> just need some FuncRequest status via
Abdelrazak> theApp->lyxFunc().getStatus().
Yes, but getStatus knows what the current buffer is.
>> However, s
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simplified? The patch seems rather mechanical to me... What
changes do you have in mind?
Abdelrazak> I just mean that I simplified the interface of these
Abdelrazak> expand functions (no Buffer passing
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Simplified? The patch seems rather mechanical to me... What
>> changes do you have in mind?
Abdelrazak> I just mean that I simplified the interface of these
Abdelrazak> expand functions (no Buffer passing) that's all.
This i
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> What do you think of the attached. I even simplified some
Abdelrazak> expand functions...
Simplified? The patch seems rather mechanical to me... What changes do you
have in mind?
I just mean
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> What do you think of the attached. I even simplified some
Abdelrazak> expand functions...
Simplified? The patch seems rather mechanical to me... What changes do you
have in mind?
I think I'd still prefer a single add
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What about removing the second parameter altogether? What are the
cases when add() can be called with view == 0?
Abdelrazak> in expandToc2:
Abdelrazak> In expandToc:
Abdelrazak> etc...
I think it is
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Dear Jean-Marc, dear all, This change seems natural to me
Abdelrazak> as none of the LyXView features are used.
The expandFoo changes are correct, but I tend to think that the
following is not
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What about removing the second parameter altogether? What are the
>> cases when add() can be called with view == 0?
Abdelrazak> in expandToc2:
Abdelrazak> In expandToc:
Abdelrazak> etc...
I think it is not passed there bec
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Dear Jean-Marc, dear all, This change seems natural to me
Abdelrazak> as none of the LyXView features are used.
The expandFoo changes are correct, but I tend to think
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Dear Jean-Marc, dear all, This change seems natural to me
Abdelrazak> as none of the LyXView features are used.
The expandFoo changes are correct, but I tend to think that the
following is not the best:
- Menu &
25 matches
Mail list logo
