Here the progress widget integrated as toolbar.
Peter
Index: development/cmake/src/support/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- development/cmake/src/support/CMakeLists.txt(revision 21309)
+++ development/cmake/src/support/CMakeLists.txt
Georg Baum wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
A naive question: what does QProcess gives us that popen would not
provide for this particular use case? Or is it that windows does not
provide popen?
It does, and LyX already uses it.
I don't know how to get the output o
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> So instead of 12 lines of straightforward code we use of 26 lines of
> ridiculously complex code that _needs to explained_(!) in 9 more lines.
>
> Moreover, this completely unnecessary use of ,
> and adds 172725 lines to a full compilation
> of LyX.
>
> That's exactly t
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:33:16AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
OTOH boost have a pretty good track record in this respect, quite a
few of the boost libraries and boost initiated changes will be in the
next version of the standard.
Speaking of boost and standardizati
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:33:16AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> OTOH boost have a pretty good track record in this respect, quite a
> few of the boost libraries and boost initiated changes will be in the
> next version of the standard.
Speaking of boost and standardization:
Index: support
Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> A naive question: what does QProcess gives us that popen would not
>> provide for this particular use case? Or is it that windows does not
>> provide popen?
It does, and LyX already uses it.
> I don't know how to get the output of the proces
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> if "lock-in" is technical or political is a debate of its own I guess.
>
> Locked in by the GPL. Sure, that's a problem.
Ahh, a new debate, at last !
JMarc
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Here the updated patch, it only needs an
>>> menu entry for hideing/showing the dock widget.
>>
>> A naive question: what does QProcess gives us that popen would not
>> provide
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Windows has 'CreatePipe'.
and no popen? Hmm, looking at ms documentation, I see there is a
_popen, but it only works for console applications (??).
> In essence, when you encapsulated that into a class on top of popen/
> CreatePipe including detailed
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:16:01PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Example 2:
> |
> | Instead of having ridiculous requirements like 'std::list::splice()
> | is O(1)' resulting in 'std::list::size() is O(n)'
> |
> | { return std:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 11:48:11PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
| > | > nowadays, so just use QP
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:25:57PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >If we decide someday that Qt should be replaced by something else
> >then, provided that proper encapsulation is done in support, [snip]
>
> Surely that is the crucial thing.
I wonder what we will do when
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Here the updated patch, it only needs an
menu entry for hideing/showing the dock widget.
A naive question: what does QProcess gives us that popen would not
provide for this particular use case? Or is it that windows does not
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| If we decide someday that Qt should be replaced by something else
| then, provided that proper encapsulation is done in support, I am
| really confident that there is absolutely *no* lock-in. We
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:35:11PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Here the updated patch, it only needs an
> > menu entry for hideing/showing the dock widget.
>
> A naive question: what does QProcess gives us that popen would not
> provide for
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Example 2:
|
| Instead of having ridiculous requirements like 'std::list::splice()
| is O(1)' resulting in 'std::list::size() is O(n)'
|
| { return std::distance(begin(), end()); }
|
| the common case should be optimized.
And the com
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:34:38AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:03:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> | > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > >Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > >
> | > >| > As far as I can t
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:33:16AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | But I am aware of your opinions.
> |
> | That does not mean I share it. We go through all sorts of trouble to
> | make boost usable within LyX up to bundling the latest and greatest,
> | and even that needs to be patched some
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:26:59AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:03:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >>Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >>>Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>| > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acc
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
If we decide someday that Qt should be replaced by something else
then, provided that proper encapsulation is done in support, [snip]
Surely that is the crucial thing.
Richard
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| You mean the TR1? I didn't know it was so close. Good to know indeed.
| Do you know if the TR1 library will be supported by gcc versions <
| 4.4? If not than this means that we will still have to use boost
| instead.
TR1 is done... TR2 is in the wor
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here the updated patch, it only needs an
> menu entry for hideing/showing the dock widget.
A naive question: what does QProcess gives us that popen would not
provide for this particular use case? Or is it that windows does not
provide popen?
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| If we decide someday that Qt should be replaced by something else
| then, provided that proper encapsulation is done in support, I am
| really confident that there is absolutely *no* lock-in. We will just
| have to rewrit
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| If we decide someday that Qt should be replaced by something else
| then, provided that proper encapsulation is done in support, I am
| really confident that there is absolutely *no* lock-in. We will just
| have to rewrite part of support/*.cpp, that
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:03:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
| > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > >Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > >
| > >| > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
| > >|
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:03:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
| > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > >Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > >
| > >| > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
| > >| > nowadays, so just use QPro
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 11:48:11PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
| > | > nowadays, so just use QProcess and be done.
| > |
| >
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:03:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
| > nowadays, so just use QProcess and be done.
|
| also mocing?
Have I
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:03:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >| > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
> >| > nowadays, so just use QProcess and be done.
> >|
> >| also mocing?
> >
> >Have I
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 11:48:11PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
> | > nowadays, so just use QProcess and be done.
> |
> | also mocing?
>
> Have I said lately that I really dis
Here the updated patch, it only needs an
menu entry for hideing/showing the dock widget.
Peter
Index: development/cmake/src/support/CMakeLists.txt
===
--- development/cmake/src/support/CMakeLists.txt(revision 21106)
+++ devel
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
| > nowadays, so just use QProcess and be done.
|
| also mocing?
Have I said lately that I really dislike Qt stuff outside Gui stuff?
We don't have any a
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
| > nowadays, so just use QProcess and be done.
|
| also mocing?
Have I said lately that I really dislike Qt stuff outside Gui stuff?
--
Lgb
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 06:55:18PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
nowadays, so just use QProcess and be done.
also mocing?
Ask the others. I don't have a problem with it.
Me neither.
We can think about a spl
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 07:36:15PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >[Why not create new code with tabs from the beginning?]
>
> In a other project I have to use spaces.
I have to use spaces at work, too. Just set up the editor accordingly...
Andre'
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 06:55:18PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
nowadays, so just use QProcess and be done.
also mocing?
Ask the others. I don't have a problem with it.
I will wait for some reactions...
I
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 06:55:18PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >As far as I can tell using QtCore in support/*.cpp is acceptable
> >nowadays, so just use QProcess and be done.
>
> also mocing?
Ask the others. I don't have a problem with it.
> >We can think about a split in support as soon as we
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 01:09:20PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Here an idea how to add a latex output widget
to the GUI (atm not fully integrated).
With this as starting point it should be possible to
create a progress bar and a button to kill the latex job.
It uses QProces
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 01:09:20PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Here an idea how to add a latex output widget
> to the GUI (atm not fully integrated).
>
> With this as starting point it should be possible to
> create a progress bar and a button to kill the latex job.
>
> It uses QProcess which is
39 matches
Mail list logo
