On Thursday 24 October 2002 14:47, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > > /.?
> >
> > You know those hidden files that are present in the root directory. Oh,
> > you don't have it? Maybe he is sepaking of Chips and Dips, who knows. ;-)
>
> http://slashdot.org
Unless this is a high level joke you didn't got
> > /.?
>
> You know those hidden files that are present in the root directory. Oh,
> you don't have it? Maybe he is sepaking of Chips and Dips, who knows. ;-)
http://slashdot.org
On Thursday 24 October 2002 02:58, Garst R. Reese wrote:
>
> It's OK John, I _was_ president of my college debating club :)
> But that does not mean that I am against Qt dev. My car license plate
> happens to be QT 519, which says only that P.E.I. is small.
Completly out of topic, but this weeke
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:29:18PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
>> On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:56, Garst R. Reese wrote: > For me
>> qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded >
>> disk.
>>
>> you must have been t
On Thursday 24 October 2002 2:06 am, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Angus,
>
> A small patch to src/frontends/xforms/FormDocument.C:
>
> (1)"#include FORMS_H_LOCATION" is there twice,
>
> (2) The following header includes appear to be superfluous:
>
> #include "bufferparams.h"
> #include "vspace.h
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:15:43PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Layouts don't nest properly.
> | No way to have a sequence of multipar "proofs" with a single layout.
>
> User definable layouts does not fix this...
That's why I was talking about user "defined environment", implementable b
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:23:49PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> > up. Sure this doesn't get the Qt Document code written but it still
> > benefits Qt because once the controller is known to work your Qt
>
> Edwin has already written the Qt doc dialog, and t
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:23:49PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> up. Sure this doesn't get the Qt Document code written but it still
> benefits Qt because once the controller is known to work your Qt
Edwin has already written the Qt doc dialog, and the controller for it.
> coding skills can complet
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> It just makes me sad to see scarce resources (developer time) being directed
> towards the xforms frontend which in turn delays qt with in turn delays inset
> unification which in turn etc etc
We have three frontends. I'm sure there are a few people (mo
Angus,
A small patch to src/frontends/xforms/FormDocument.C:
(1)"#include FORMS_H_LOCATION" is there twice,
(2) The following header includes appear to be superfluous:
#include "bufferparams.h"
#include "vspace.h"
#include "lyxfunc.h"
#include "bufferview_funcs.h
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:25:54PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> It just makes me sad to see scarce resources (developer time) being directed
> towards the xforms frontend which in turn delays qt with in turn delays inset
> unification which in turn etc etc
Well me too, I suppose, but we can't f
> What's with the attitude Edwin ?
my apologies to Garst, but after reading his email I thought I was on /.
instead off lyx-devel. Forgot myself so to say
> Some people will prefer to still use xforms.
precisely my point
> So what ?
Yes, I don't care either
> You don't have to
> use
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
| > > Things like "native support" for \newenvironment{} ?
| >
| > Isn't that done via .layout files ???
|
| Layouts don't nest properly.
|
| No way to have a sequence of multipar "proofs" wi
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:40:17PM +0200, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> No way to have a sequence of multipar "proofs" with a single layout.
Which btw leads to a more compact work around than that I was previously
aware of: One could create two otherwide identical layouts called 'proof1'
and 'proof2' an
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > Things like "native support" for \newenvironment{} ?
>
> Isn't that done via .layout files ???
Layouts don't nest properly.
No way to have a sequence of multipar "proofs" with a single layout.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give u
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:31:02PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Smaller?
>
> I said "seriously"
I am serious.
I would't install the whole lot of Qt helper libs just to run LyX.
> but I doubt most people will. 90 percent of the user's will have some version
> of qt installed.
I care about 90
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:29:18PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:56, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > For me qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded
> > disk.
>
> you must have been the president of your university's debating club.
I thought the pur
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:29:18PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:56, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > For me qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded
> > disk.
>
> you must have been the president of your university's debating club.
What's with the
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:12:34PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Things like "native support" for \newenvironment{} ?
Isn't that done via .layout files ???
john
--
"This is playing, not work, therefore it's not a waste of time."
- Zath
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:34:23PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > You need a new feature?
>
> It seems a bit pointless releasing otherwise.
I have no problems with "no release".
Apart from that there are a few new fearures.
We can read old .lyx files now for starters.
> > What about user defined
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:17, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > But seriously, what's the point of
> > the xforms frontend once we have a qt frontend?
>
> Smaller?
I said "seriously"
> I think I will.
but I doubt most people will. 90 percent of the user's will have some version
of qt installed. an
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:56, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> For me qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded
> disk.
you must have been the president of your university's debating club.
Ed,
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 01:26, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> Edwin Leuven wrote:
>
> > Best way to do this is with rm -rf. But seriously, what's the point of the
> > xforms frontend once we have a qt frontend?
> For me qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded
> disk.
> Garst
>
Ye
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 00:54, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:01:45PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > Since there was this political decision of including the Qt frontend in
> > 1.3.0 if I may remind you.
>
> So what would a 1.3.0 without Qt's release notes look like ?
>
> o Fixe
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 06:30:59PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > What are the new features that warrant a release, if not Qt ?
>
> You need a new feature?
It seems a bit pointless releasing otherwise.
> What about user defined environments?
>
> Two days work and not a four month stall.
What
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:24:49PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> So what would a 1.3.0 without Qt's release notes look like ?
>
> o Fixed some minor stuff
> o spellchecking of multi-language docs
>
> What are the new features that warrant a release, if not Qt ?
You need a new feature?
What about u
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:49:15PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > been a good place to start. I think that the current state
> > > of the code reflects my learning curve pretty well.
> >
> > Sure, but this is an ongoing process ...
>
> tht's the nature of learning curves.
I mean the cleanup w
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:01:45PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Since there was this political decision of including the Qt frontend in
> 1.3.0 if I may remind you.
So what would a 1.3.0 without Qt's release notes look like ?
o Fixed some minor stuff
o spellchecking of multi-language docs
What
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:14:09PM +, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Best way to do this is with rm -rf. But seriously, what's the point of the
> xforms frontend once we have a qt frontend?
Smaller?
> Of course you do whatever you feel like doing. That's the game. It's
> just that all this effort on
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:57:59PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > For the here and now, I'll happily attempt controller/view splits
> > of the remaining dialogs, but you'll have noticed that there is a
> > considerable effort involved.
>
> But *this* work is blocking the release of 1.3.0.
Since t
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 2:57 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:00:28PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > I'm really not that interested in GUIs. I am interested in
> > learning how to write good code and the frontend stuff has
> > been a good place to start. I think that the cur
Dear Angus,
> You'll have noticed that I haven't got involved with the Qt stuff at all.
> There's a reason for that and I'll let you into the secret:
> Elegant, understandable code is what I'm interested in.
Of course we all have our own reasons. I am interested in an elegant,
understandable and
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:00:28PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I'm really not that interested in GUIs. I am interested in learning
> how to write good code and the frontend stuff has been a good
> place to start. I think that the current state of the code reflects my
> learning curve pretty w
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 3:15 pm, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> On Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:57, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Thereafter, I /may/ gird up my loins and convert it to
> > Edwin's Control/View split...
>
> why not spend your time on the qt dialog? time better spend if
> you ask me.
Hello, Ed!
You'
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wednesday 23 October 2002 12:50 pm, Rob Lahaye wrote:
>> One small thing to remove:
>>
>>
>> @@ -386,6 +414,9 @@ void FormDocument::update()
>> language_update(params);
>> options_update(params);
>> bullets_update(params)
On Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:57, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Thereafter, I /may/ gird up my loins and convert it to Edwin's
> Control/View split...
why not spend your time on the qt dialog? time better spend if you ask me.
Ed.
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 12:50 pm, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> One small thing to remove:
>
>
> @@ -386,6 +414,9 @@ void FormDocument::update()
> language_update(params);
> options_update(params);
> bullets_update(params);
> +
> +// reset widgets to valid input
> +
Angus Leeming wrote:
Check out the use of the checkedGlueLengths here!
Ooo! You're left in no doubt that you've entered
something dumn. Rob, I've made it a little less in-your-face by
setting only LCOL1 to red. That way, the user won't get irritated too
much as he tries to enter the val
38 matches
Mail list logo
