On Sunday 09 July 2006 19:40, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | Not only easily available but they are already there, and so they have
> | been for some time.
>
> I'll admit to a few weeks.
FWIW since 2006-05-24
--
José Abílio
Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sunday 09 July 2006 14:57, Charles de Miramon wrote:
| > For Fedora there are easily available packages
| >
| > http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/3/srodzaj/1/search/qt4
|
| Not only easily available but they are already there, and so they have bee
On Sunday 09 July 2006 14:57, Charles de Miramon wrote:
> For Fedora there are easily available packages
>
> http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/3/srodzaj/1/search/qt4
Not only easily available but they are already there, and so they have been
for some time.
--
José Abílio
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> OK, once again: when 1.5 ships I would expect that people who have
> installed a new distribution in July 2006 are not laughed at because
> their distribution is really inadequate for using LyX.
>
Well the next stable versions of Debian
and Mandriva
(http://fr2.rp
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| And qt4 (the frontend) is already faster than qt3 nowadays on Windows
| and Linux.
Hmm... lets say 'equally fast' (or slow...)
--
Lgb
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:59:22AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre> 'Using LyX 1.5 on a distribution shipped in July 2006' means
Andre> 'installing LyX 1.5'. Installing Qt 4 in the same place is
Andre> about the same (I'd even argue 'less') effort and requires the
A
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:59:22AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> 'Using LyX 1.5 on a distribution shipped in July 2006' means
> Andre> 'installing LyX 1.5'. Installing Qt 4 in the same place is
> Andre> about the same (I'd even argue 'less') effort and requires the
> Andre> same set o
> "Jose'" == Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jose'> Without too much data, I have faith that it will, if not
Jose'> become faster than qt3. I have two reasons for this, there are
Jose'> (will be) more lyx developers working in qt4, and qt4 as André
Jose'> says is improving speedwise
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 10:59, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> I think it is sufficient to keep Qt 3 compilable, let GTK rot
> Andre> (in the sense to declare it 'tolerated, but not supported by
> Andre> the core team'), and put all effort into Qt 4.
>
> Also, are we sure that at that time q
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> 'Using LyX 1.5 on a distribution shipped in July 2006' means
Andre> 'installing LyX 1.5'. Installing Qt 4 in the same place is
Andre> about the same (I'd even argue 'less') effort and requires the
Andre> same set of priviledges.
Ar
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:57:27AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> So there is currently _no_ linux distribution that has a qt4
> >> really good enough for LyX?
>
> Andre> The point is that there is currently no distribution
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> G'day, y'all. It's great to see LyX-life is so busy and that
Angus> debate is both in a healthy state and leading to improved
Angus> outcomes ;-)
I would even say it is in an improved state and leads to healthy
outcomes.
JMarc
Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > PS: hello Angus!
> I double.
G'day, y'all. It's great to see LyX-life is so busy and that debate is both in a
healthy state and leading to improved outcomes ;-)
Angus
On Monday 03 July 2006 14:21, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> It was supposed to be SCNR...
In the previous context any of the following alternatives seems plausible:
Acronym Definition
SCNR Signal to Clutter plus Noise Ratio
SCNR Somatic Cell Nuclear Replacement
SCNR Sorry, Could Not Re
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes writes:
>> So, shall we decide now that LyX/Win 1.5 will only run on Windows
>> Vista? Once the political decision is made, I am sure I can come up
>> with technical reasons :)
>>
>> SNCR, JMarc
Angus> SNCR? T
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes writes:
> So, shall we decide now that LyX/Win 1.5 will only run on Windows Vista?
> Once the political decision is made, I am sure I can come up with
> technical reasons :)
>
> SNCR,
> JMarc
SNCR? The best I could come up with is
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/SNCR wh
> "Edwin" == Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Jose' Matos wrote:
>>> On Monday 03 July 2006 10:57, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
OK, once again: when 1.5 ships I would expect that people who
have installed a new distribution in July 2006 are not laughed at
because their
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Jose' Matos wrote:
On Monday 03 July 2006 10:57, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
OK, once again: when 1.5 ships I would expect that people who have
installed a new distribution in July 2006 are n
Jose' Matos wrote:
On Monday 03 July 2006 10:57, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
OK, once again: when 1.5 ships I would expect that people who have
installed a new distribution in July 2006 are not laughed at because
their distribution is really inadequate for using LyX.
they can install qt4. i do
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Jose' Matos wrote:
>> On Monday 03 July 2006 10:57, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> OK, once again: when 1.5 ships I would expect that people who have
>>> installed a new distribution in July 2006 are not laughed at
>>
Jose' Matos wrote:
On Monday 03 July 2006 10:57, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
OK, once again: when 1.5 ships I would expect that people who have
installed a new distribution in July 2006 are not laughed at because
their distribution is really inadequate for using LyX.
FWIW I agree.
Then you
On Monday 03 July 2006 10:57, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> OK, once again: when 1.5 ships I would expect that people who have
> installed a new distribution in July 2006 are not laughed at because
> their distribution is really inadequate for using LyX.
FWIW I agree.
--
José Abílio
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So there is currently _no_ linux distribution that has a qt4
>> really good enough for LyX?
Andre> The point is that there is currently no distribution shipping
Andre> LyX 1.5 either.
OK, once again: when 1.5 ships I would expect tha
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:12:22PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Helge> People who run an old distribution runs whatever old lyx that
> Helge> distribution distributes, don't they?
>
> If LyX is important to them, having a new
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Abdelrazak> 4.1.0 will do fine yes but for speed I would recommend the
| > Abdelrazak> latest.
| >
| > So there is currently _no_ linux distribution that has a qt4 really
| > good enough for LyX?
|
| The point is that there is currently no distributi
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:19:23AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > I won't mind xforms going away - with its not antialiased text,
> | > cumbersome menus, and inability to use unicode.
> | > But I hope qt3 will stay around until qt4 catches
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:49:45PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >Second, it _is_ our problem to ensure that LyX can be built (and work
> >well) on a 2 years old distribution.
>
> i didn't know that qt4 doesn't work on 2 year old distros
Neither did I, given that I am
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:54:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the
> | > other frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one
> | > o
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 12:18:09PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Abdelrazak> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> Lars> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Helge> People who run an old distribution runs whatever old lyx that
Helge> distribution distributes, don't they?
If LyX is important to them, having a newer version is more important
than having a newer linux.
> "Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Helge> People who run an old distribution runs whatever old lyx that
Helge> distribution distributes, don't they?
If LyX is important to them, having a newer version is more important
than having a newer linux. Just consider the fact tha
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all
Lars> distri
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Peter> To get an impression how Qt4 is available atm see the upper
> Peter> left corner at:
>
> These are pointer to up to date (and presumably hard to find) rpms in
> case where the distributor does not ha
> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> To get an impression how Qt4 is available atm see the upper
Peter> left corner at:
These are pointer to up to date (and presumably hard to find) rpms in
case where the distributor does not have them, right?
Thank for the pointer, I
Georg Baum wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
>>> "Abdel" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> writes:
So there is currently _no_ linux distribution that has a qt4
really good enough for LyX? Is your plan to tell people that they
should not bother about LyX if t
> "Edwin" == Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edwin> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Second, it _is_ our problem to ensure that LyX can be built (and
>> work well) on a 2 years old distribution.
Edwin> i didn't know that qt4 doesn't work on 2 year old distros
It is not the matter of b
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Abdel" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> writes:
>
>>> So there is currently _no_ linux distribution that has a qt4
>>> really good enough for LyX? Is your plan to tell people that they
>>> should not bother about LyX if their distribution is mor
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Second, it _is_ our problem to ensure that LyX can be built (and work
well) on a 2 years old distribution.
i didn't know that qt4 doesn't work on 2 year old distros
On Monday 26 June 2006 13:58, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > Yes, this is what I wrote. When it is out, we should be able to
> > support distributions that are about 2 years old.
>
> Sorry but I still think this is not our problem if some two years old
> distribution won't distribute a Qt4 package.
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes, this is what I wrote. When it is out, we should be able to
>> support distributions that are about 2 years old.
Abdelrazak> Sorry but I still think this is not our problem if some
Abdelrazak> two years old distribution w
On Jun 26, 2006, at 4:07 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
This is coming up just around the corner. My tree is already faster
than qt3 on Windows and is apparently the same speed on Linux. Once
we have some number for Mac we could make a decision IMHO.
I'm compiling younes branch now, having ju
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 02:41:44PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Abdelrazak> All non-willing distributions can stay with LyX-1.4.x the
> Abdelrazak> same way Win95 users won't have LyX > 1.3.
>
> I gues they can if th
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdel" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So there is currently _no_ linux distribution that has a qt4
really good enough for LyX? Is your plan to tell people that they
should not bother about LyX if their distribution is more than one
year old?
Ab
> "Abdel" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So there is currently _no_ linux distribution that has a qt4
>> really good enough for LyX? Is your plan to tell people that they
>> should not bother about LyX if their distribution is more than one
>> year old?
Abdel> Last point
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> All non-willing distributions can stay with LyX-1.4.x the
Abdelrazak> same way Win95 users won't have LyX > 1.3.
I gues they can if they have the real Qt3/Win.
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> So there is currently _no_ linux distribution that has a qt4 really
> good enough for LyX? Is your plan to tell people that they should not
> bother about LyX if their distribution is more than one year old?
>
> And I do not like bundling either. This whole stuff bega
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all
Lars> distributions have Qt4 as default yet.
Jose' Matos wrote:
On Monday 26 June 2006 11:02, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Who talk about maintaining a Qt copy?
That is what you are saying below. :-)
In the past, software were
distributed in a tar.gz and it worked fine for all distrib.
The past is the past. :-)
We just need
to extr
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Lars> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all
Lars> distributions have Qt4 as default yet. IMHO that is a
L
On Monday 26 June 2006 11:02, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Who talk about maintaining a Qt copy?
That is what you are saying below. :-)
> In the past, software were
> distributed in a tar.gz and it worked fine for all distrib.
The past is the past. :-)
> We just need
> to extract the librar
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As I said in another post, bundling two libs with the package or
compiling statically against the libs (QtCore and QtGui) is not a big
deal...
I disagree. If we start to maintain our own qt4 copy we can as well keep the
qt3 frontend in a working stat
Georg Baum wrote:
> Edwin Leuven wrote:
>
>> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> But my guess is that the question is moot in the time 1.5 is released.
>> indeed
>>
>> and that's why we should depreciate qt3 (and xforms) to 1.4
>
> Does anybody have a estimates when qt4 will be default in major distro
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> As I said in another post, bundling two libs with the package or
> compiling statically against the libs (QtCore and QtGui) is not a big
> deal...
I disagree. If we start to maintain our own qt4 copy we can as well keep the
qt3 frontend in a working state. The only reas
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all
Lars> distributions have Qt4 as default yet. IMHO that is a
Lars> requirement to drop qt3.
Yes. Among the distributions that are current today, how
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Georg Baum wrote:
| > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| >> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all distributions
| >> have Qt4 as default yet. IMHO that is a requirement to drop qt3.
| > Agreed. I don't want
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> But my guess is that the question is moot in the time 1.5 is released.
>
> indeed
>
> and that's why we should depreciate qt3 (and xforms) to 1.4
Does anybody have a estimates when qt4 will be default in major distros? If
we had that we could
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Are you aware of the fact that the same rules hold for ALL
Michael> project members including yourself? This means that I won't
Michael> accept a unicode patch before it works with all frontends!
Michael> Good luck! (And I will o
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all
Lars> distributions have Qt4 as default yet. IMHO that is a
Lars> requirement to drop qt3.
Yes. Among the distributions that are current today, how many ship a
version of qt
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
But my guess is that the question is moot in the time 1.5 is released.
indeed
and that's why we should depreciate qt3 (and xforms) to 1.4
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Georg Baum wrote:
| > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| >> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all distributions
| >> have Qt4 as default yet. IMHO that is a requirement to drop qt3.
| > Agreed. I don't want LyX to use a different qt li
Georg Baum wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all distributions
have Qt4 as default yet. IMHO that is a requirement to drop qt3.
Agreed. I don't want LyX to use a different qt lib than my KDE uses.
This is non sense IMHO. What does it cost yo
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> AFAIK (and this depends on when 1.5 is ready) not all distributions
> have Qt4 as default yet. IMHO that is a requirement to drop qt3.
Agreed. I don't want LyX to use a different qt lib than my KDE uses.
Georg
Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | > You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the
| > | > other frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I won't mind xforms going away - with its not antialiased text,
| > cumbersome menus, and inability to use unicode.
| > But I hope qt3 will stay around until qt4 catches up on performance
| > on all platforms.
|
| This is coming up just around the
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the
| > other frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one
| > of the frontends.
|
| this is why we should have 1 (
Helge Hafting wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the
other frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one
of the frontends.
this is why we should have 1 (and only 1) official frontend at a time
it
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the
other frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one
of the frontends.
this is why we should have 1 (and only 1) official frontend at a time
it is madness to require
Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the
| > other frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one
| > of the frontends.
|
| this is why we should have 1 (and only 1) official frontend
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the
other frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one
of the frontends.
this is why we should have 1 (and only 1) official frontend at a time
it is madness to require people to prevent 3
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the other
> | > frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one of the
> | > frontends.
> | >
>
> [...]
> |
>
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the other
| > frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one of the
| > frontends.
| >
[...]
|
| Now you write that you have an improvement but
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> You see... there is the difference, I don't plan on breaking the other
> frontends just because I am introducing a feature only for one of the
> frontends.
>
> And this will be the case with unicode.
>
> (And if when I do/have done so, it has been a case of very bad
>
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| >Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| >| Ask for xforms frontend removal - it is the easiest way to get things
| >| done :-)
| >
| >And to hide the performance we should be aiming for imho.
| >
| Lars,
|
| someti
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Ask for xforms frontend removal - it is the easiest way to get things
| done :-)
And to hide the performance we should be aiming for imho.
Lars,
sometimes it can become very tedious to discuss with you.
Are you aware o
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Ask for xforms frontend removal - it is the easiest way to get things
| done :-)
And to hide the performance we should be aiming for imho.
--
Lgb
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
There are now two remaining uses of workArea_:
BufferView::Pimpl::update(Update::flags flags)
workArea_->redraw(*bv_, vi);
workArea_->greyOut();
These should be reasonably easy to solve but then I am affraid of the
work involved to fix the frontends other tha
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> And the good news is that, with this patch and msvc2005, the UserGuide
> PageDown scrolling test is now at *18* seconds whereas it was at *34*
> seconds previously! It is now faster than qt3 on my machine (which is 22s).
Great, I also get a huge speedup, from 31 to 19 se
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you want me to convert that to a class?
No, I want you to initialize the variables when you create an
instance of the thing:
> struct ScrollbarParameters
> {
+ ScrollbarParameters()
+ : height(0),
+ : position(0),
+
On Thursday 22 June 2006 17:30, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>
> PODs I mean...
I like this more:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/intrinsic-types.html#faq-26.7
--
José Abílio
On Thursday 22 June 2006 17:30, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > Angus Leeming wrote:
> >
> > What POS means anyway?
>
> PODs I mean...
Plain Old Data:
http://www.fnal.gov/docs/working-groups/fpcltf/Pkg/ISOcxx/doc/POD.html
--
José Abílio
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Angus Leeming wrote:
What POS means anyway?
PODs I mean...
Angus Leeming wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Index: BufferView.h
===
+struct ScrollbarParameters
I get nervous when I see a class containing PODs but without a default
constructor. I'd prefer to see
S
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With this patch I further reduce the need for the workArea_ member in
> BufferView::pimpl.
Looks good.
> And the good news is that, with this patch and msvc2005, the UserGuide
> PageDown scrolling test is now at *18* seconds whereas it was at *34*
83 matches
Mail list logo
