Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Andre Poenitz wrote:
| > This would make Sep 27 a good target, closely followed by Sep 20 and July
| > 26. The next bunch is July 19, and Sep 6.
|
| IMO Sep 27 would be a perfect date ;)
But it is awfully late...
--
Lgb
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 10:07 am, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:48:01AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > The problem here is that we use direct access from the GUI to the
> > > kernel to extract information instead of using the 'pipe interface'.
> > > One reason for that is, o
Andre Poenitz wrote:
This would make Sep 27 a good target, closely followed by Sep 20 and July
26. The next bunch is July 19, and Sep 6.
IMO Sep 27 would be a perfect date ;)
Jug
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Dr. Jürgen VignaE-Mail: [E
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:53:27AM +0100, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> [- indicates Jose or Lars not attenting who could attend if we'd stick to
> June 22th. I would not like to use these dates.]
Uh... In noticed that should be extended to those dates concerning
Jean-Marc as well. So July 19 and Sep 6
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:48:01AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > The problem here is that we use direct access from the GUI to the kernel
> > to extract information instead of using the 'pipe interface'. One reason
> > for that is, of course, that our current 'pipe interface' does not allow
> > t
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:41:07AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> So, here what it would look like for me
Thanks.
> Note that I took the liberty to add June 29, which for some strange
> reason does not appear on the list.
Sorry. My mistake.
The current state now is:
Lars Jo
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I think I'd still rather pass a
>
>FuncRequest(DIALOG_SHOW, arg, InsetBase*, whatever)
>
> to
>
>cmd.view()->dispatch()
>
> in the Inset::dispatch(cmd) instead of having all these mailer classes
> around, but I have no religious feelings about it.
Fair enough. B
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:35:10PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> > But I have another problem: I need to re-implement almost all of the
>> > TabularInset interface to make it play nicely with FormTabular.C
>> > (and I am not sure I like it)
>>
>> You mean you have to w
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:46:51PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote: PS: Jean-Marc, I still need a few numbers...
>> Yes, sorry about that. I am still waiting for answer of somebody I
>> am suppoed to visit at the beginning
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:32:02PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Actually, we could have
>
> static boost::signal2 Dialogs::hideDialog
>
> and connect this to any instance of the Dialogs class. It would be used as:
>
> void MailInset::hideDialog() {
> Dialogs::hideDialog
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:35:10PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > But I have another problem: I need to re-implement almost all of the
> > TabularInset interface to make it play nicely with FormTabular.C
> > (and I am not sure I like it)
>
> You mean you have to write a methods equivalent to
On Monday 10 March 2003 6:20 pm, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:20:41PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Try the attached patch anyway...
>
> Doesn't look wrong...
>
> But I have another problem: I need to re-implement almost all of the
> TabularInset interface to make it play nic
Angus Leeming wrote:
> We could certainly pass a BufferView to showDialog and updateDialog and
> that BufferView could come from the calling FuncRequest. The problem comes
> with hideDialog which must be called from the inset's d-tor. I'm at a bit
> of a loss how to do that otherwise. I would reall
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:20:41PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Try the attached patch anyway...
Doesn't look wrong...
But I have another problem: I need to re-implement almost all of the
TabularInset interface to make it play nicely with FormTabular.C
(and I am not sure I like it)
Not toda
On Monday 10 March 2003 6:01 pm, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:02:16PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Because the plan was to consider a LyXView as a GUI entity. This enitity
> > would have its own dialogs and (possibly) multiple BufferViews.
> > Moreover, we could have multipl
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:08:10PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> You did. Anything before mid July is no good for me. Thereafter I have some
> commitments in mid August and the w/e of 11 Sep but the rest is free. I'll
> dig out my diary again.
Ok. I'll wait.
Sep 27 is starting to look really g
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 07:07:17PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | May 3 1 0 5 0 0
> | May10 1 0 5 0 0
> | May17 1 0 5 0 0
> | May24 1 0 5 0 0
> | June1 1 5 5 0
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:02:16PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Because the plan was to consider a LyXView as a GUI entity. This enitity
> would have its own dialogs and (possibly) multiple BufferViews.
> Moreover, we could have multiple LyXViews each with its own dialogs.
Hmm.. stupid me... the
On Monday 10 March 2003 5:53 pm, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:47:25PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > | You'll get an extra free beer in June. Oh, no, wait...
> >
> > btw. Have we decided on a date?
>
> I was waiting for Jean-Marc's wish list.
>
> Current plan is still 22
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:46:51PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
| > Andre> PS: Jean-Marc, I still need a few numbers...
| >
| > Yes, sorry about that. I am still waiting for answer of somebody I am
| > suppoed to visit at the beginning of june. Wh
On Monday 10 March 2003 5:43 pm, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:45:31PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > Ok, the view() is 0. But I do not want to store it somewhere, nor
> > > would I like to guess.
> > >
> > > Why is the view() essential for the dialogs?
> >
> > Something has
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:47:25PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | You'll get an extra free beer in June. Oh, no, wait...
>
> btw. Have we decided on a date?
I was waiting for Jean-Marc's wish list.
Current plan is still 22th of June, but it does not look like a very
senssible date right n
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:46:51PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> PS: Jean-Marc, I still need a few numbers...
>
> Yes, sorry about that. I am still waiting for answer of somebody I am
> suppoed to visit at the beginning of june. What are the periods you ar
> ethe most interested in?
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:45:31PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Ok, the view() is 0. But I do not want to store it somewhere, nor would I
> > like to guess.
> >
> > Why is the view() essential for the dialogs?
>
> Something has to physically store the bloody things you burk ;-)
I'd guess so.
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:32:58PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
| > Dialogs.C and Dialog2.C were originally split over two files because the
| > template instatiations of the old scheme were by far the most expensive
| > part of the entire compilation p
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:32:58PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> Dialogs.C and Dialog2.C were originally split over two files
>> because the template instatiations of the old scheme were by far
>> the most expensive part of the ent
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> Ok, the view() is 0. But I do not want to store it somewhere, nor would I
> like to guess.
>
> Why is the view() essential for the dialogs?
Something has to physically store the bloody things you burk ;-)
bv->owner()->getDialogs().show(name(), inset2string(),
Ok, the view() is 0. But I do not want to store it somewhere, nor would I
like to guess.
Why is the view() essential for the dialogs?
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:32:58PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Dialogs.C and Dialog2.C were originally split over two files because the
> template instatiations of the old scheme were by far the most expensive
> part of the entire compilation process. The new scheme is far, far cheaper
> as we
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:23:55PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> frontends/$GUI/Dialogs.Cwill all die when the new scheme
>> frontends/$GUI/Dialogs2.C is implemented fully
>> frontends/$GUI/Dialog3.C contains stuff that is dependent on the GUI
>> toolk
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:23:55PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> frontends/$GUI/Dialogs.Cwill all die when the new scheme
> frontends/$GUI/Dialogs2.C is implemented fully
> frontends/$GUI/Dialog3.C contains stuff that is dependent on the GUI
> toolkit.
I meant these.
If two
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:00:33PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> The Dialogs::show method (frontends/Dialogs.C) will filter out crap if
>> you pass it a (!isValidName(name))... Does anything arrive here but
>> proceed no further?
>
> Hm.. why is this split over three files
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:00:33PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> The Dialogs::show method (frontends/Dialogs.C) will filter out crap if you
> pass it a (!isValidName(name))... Does anything arrive here but proceed no
> further?
Hm.. why is this split over three files?
The files aren't _that_ bi
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:00:33PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> One possible problem: MailInset::showDialog will fail silently if
> inset.view() == 0. Maybe this is the root of your problems?
Could well be. I'll have a look.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Secur
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> It does not get to ControlParam::initialiseParam() as far as I can tell.
>
> Andre'
The Dialogs::show method (frontends/Dialogs.C) will filter out crap if you
pass it a (!isValidName(name))... Does anything arrive here but proceed no
further?
One possible problem: Ma
35 matches
Mail list logo
