On 10/08/2010 02:46 PM, Jacob Barandes wrote:
Hi,
When I select a math-input expression x in LyX, go to the minibuffer,
and put in, say, math-delim | |, I get |x|, as desired; that is,
math-delim is smart enough to automatically wrap selected math
expressions.
But if I create a math macro t
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 06:09:27PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> So, if I understand correctly, the argument goes as follows.
>
> - nobody but a few knew of the command line
> - so we separated it from the status display to make them more visible
> - now it takes too much space
> - so we hide
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 02:52:59PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> In case anyone's interested, the rationale is simple - nobody* knew that
> you could type into the minibuffer. This was partly due to visual
> decoration in the xforms frontend, and partly due to its "status bar"
> behaviour.
>
> And on
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:32:32PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I think so. Here's why.
>
> The command buffer performs two roles:
> 1. It provides us with state information. (All those useful 'Running
> latex' etc messages.)
> 2. It gives us a means to enter lfuns from 'by hand'.
>
> The xform
Leuven, E. wrote:
>>> Is the argument for not having it visible always, valid?
>> I think so. Here's why.
>> The command buffer performs two roles:
>
> maybe time to implement a status bar to separate the two?
Let's fix existing bugs rather than create new ones. It'd be nice to
get 14x out of the
>> Is the argument for not having it visible always, valid?
> I think so. Here's why.
> The command buffer performs two roles:
maybe time to implement a status bar to separate the two?
ed.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:14:11PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Is the argument for not having it visible always, valid?
I don't think so. Personnaly I'd like to have the minibuffer always
visible. But I don't care too much about UI issues as long as it does
not interfere with the way I am
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> > Well, if this would be done, I could live with it. Until then
>>> > I'd prefer a visible mini-buffer. Makes debugging a bit easier.
>>>
>>> We could probably enable it by default for development versions or
>>> something
>>
> | I certainly wouldn't mind...
>
> Is
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 06:02:05PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>
>> > Well, if this would be done, I could live with it. Until then I'd
>> > prefer a visible mini-buffer. Makes debugging a
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 06:02:05PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > Well, if this would be done, I could live with it. Until then I'd
> > prefer a visible mini-buffer. Makes debugging a bit easier.
>
> We could probably enable it by d
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Well, if this would be done, I could live with it. Until then I'd
> prefer a visible mini-buffer. Makes debugging a bit easier.
We could probably enable it by default for development versions or
something
regards
john
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I mean: What can I do (as a user) to have the minibuffer permanently
> enabled?
edit stdtoolbars. Of course a gui would be great.
Jürgen.
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:08:10PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 05:58:57PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > Is this a permanent change?
>
> Yes. I would like some things on top though (and have done for a long
> time). First, the M-x thing Angus mentioned. Second a View->To
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 09:47:00AM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > agreed. In the meantime, you can turn the minibuffer on via the context
> > > menu (rmb when the mouse is over the toolbars). Just in case you didn't
> > > notice this feature (I did by chance).
> >
>
John Levon wrote:
> Yes. I would like some things on top though (and have done for a long
> time). First, the M-x thing Angus mentioned. Second a View->Toolbars
> submenu.
Welcome back :-)
Jürgen.
On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 05:58:57PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Is this a permanent change?
Yes. I would like some things on top though (and have done for a long
time). First, the M-x thing Angus mentioned. Second a View->Toolbars
submenu.
regards
john
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > agreed. In the meantime, you can turn the minibuffer on via the context
> > menu (rmb when the mouse is over the toolbars). Just in case you didn't
> > notice this feature (I did by chance).
>
> Is this a permanent change?
What? The removal of the minibuffer? I guess so.
On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 12:40:18PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Now, personally, I think that it should be there, but leaving that to
> > one side, why don't we have a minibuffer that 'appears' when I type
> > 'M-x' and 'disappears' when I subsequently hit return? T
Angus Leeming wrote:
> Now, personally, I think that it should be there, but leaving that to
> one side, why don't we have a minibuffer that 'appears' when I type
> 'M-x' and 'disappears' when I subsequently hit return? That way, its
> behaviour is analogous to the math and table toolbars in the Qt
John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 05:25:10PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> Now, personally, I think that it should be there, but leaving that
>> to one side, why don't we have a minibuffer that 'appears' when I
>> type 'M-x' and 'disappears' when I subsequently hit return? That
>> wa
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 05:25:10PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Now, personally, I think that it should be there, but leaving that to
> one side, why don't we have a minibuffer that 'appears' when I type
> 'M-x' and 'disappears' when I subsequently hit return? That way, its
> behaviour is anal
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 05:38:39PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Wasn't John talking about separate "edit" and "display" command buffers.
> Ie, all commands are displayed in the "display" buffer" that I see at the
> bottom of your screenshot.
That's right.
> Hitting M-x would make the "edit" b
On Tuesday 23 July 2002 5:54 pm, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Wouldn't that be a bit distracting ?
>
> Personally I don't think so. It's like run command under KDE (alt-f2) which
> I find very convenient.
>
> > Bear in mind the command buffer is
> > a feature for power users only really, and sooner or
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:54:57PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Wouldn't that be a bit distracting ?
>
> Personally I don't think so. It's like run command under KDE (alt-f2) which I
> find very convenient.
Well, so do I, but then again I only ever use the minicli to start
programs, not to i
> Wouldn't that be a bit distracting ?
Personally I don't think so. It's like run command under KDE (alt-f2) which I
find very convenient.
> Bear in mind the command buffer is
> a feature for power users only really, and sooner or later it will be
> possible to hide/show it from the menus.
>
>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:39:55PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nicer to have a little modal window with an editable combobox
> as a command buffer? It would popup with M-x and disappear after use...
Wouldn't that be a bit distracting ? Bear in mind the command buffer is
a featur
26 matches
Mail list logo
