Guenter Milde wrote:
> > i'm waiting for your answer since i don't know whether you meant
> > exactly this.
>
> exactly.
its in
pavel
Pavel Sanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> > G Milde wrote:
>> > > > Next issue is the bindings. There ought to
>> > > > be other places we can use this, too, no?
>> > >
>> > > 1. a find-next binding that recalls the last search from the find
>> > >
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > G Milde wrote:
> > > > Next issue is the bindings. There ought to
> > > > be other places we can use this, too, no?
> > >
> > > 1. a find-next binding that recalls the last search from the find dialogue
> > >without re-openign it -- falling back to
On 25.09.08, rgheck wrote:
> G Milde wrote:
>> 2. I would like some alternative binding for mathed:
> As Pavel said, this would be excellent, but isn't for 1.6.
I filed a bug report for this: http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5286
Günter
G Milde wrote:
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
This has now been committed.
Just a name change proposal: command-alternatives -> command-try
I know that one is long, but it's a bit more explicit.
Next issue is the bindings. There ought to
be other places we can use this, to
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> G Milde wrote:
> > > Next issue is the bindings. There ought to
> > > be other places we can use this, too, no?
> >
> > 1. a find-next binding that recalls the last search from the find dialogue
> >without re-openign it -- falling back to dialog-show findreplace.
if you
G Milde wrote:
> > Next issue is the bindings. There ought to
> > be other places we can use this, too, no?
>
> 1. a find-next binding that recalls the last search from the find dialogue
>without re-openign it -- falling back to dialog-show findreplace.
>
>
> 2. I would like some alternativ
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> This has now been committed.
Just a name change proposal: command-alternatives -> command-try
> Next issue is the bindings. There ought to
> be other places we can use this, too, no?
1. a find-next binding that recalls the last search from the find dialog
This has now been committed. Next issue is the bindings. There ought to
be other places we can use this, too, no?
rh
leuven edwin wrote:
bind-sequence
I'll go with command-alternatives, if only because it stays in the
command-* family.
rh
bind-sequence
?
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe the former?
I'll let you use your great wisdom to pick one.
JMarc
Richard Heck wrote:
> So I propose just to commit what I've got
i agree with this.
call + command-sequence allows to work around it.
pavel
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
All those are great ideas, but none of them are things I have time to
do. ;-) The current proposal is minimally invasive, and this kind of
change is very much so. So I propose just to commit what I've got, and
if we want to change
Richard Heck wrote:
> In the current system, yes. But a better system would display something
> like "Tab (alt)" for those things. This is because the shortcut dialog also
> functions as information: How do I get ?
this could be solved by new additional column with some flag, that this is
al
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All those are great ideas, but none of them are things I have time to
> do. ;-) The current proposal is minimally invasive, and this kind of
> change is very much so. So I propose just to commit what I've got, and
> if we want to change the syntax we can do that
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
+\bind "Tab""alternatives completion-accept; cell-forward"
really good approach
I've have a quick go at this. The patch is attached.
These alternative bindings don't show quite right in the shortcut editor.
(Try typing "com
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But if we used a different delimiter?
Or accept
alternative command-sequence foo \; bar ; baz
Or ... [snip]
All those are great ideas, but none of them are things I have time to
do. ;-) The current proposal is min
Richard Heck wrote:
>>> +\bind "Tab""alternatives completion-accept; cell-forward"
really good approach
> I've have a quick go at this. The patch is attached.
>
> These alternative bindings don't show quite right in the shortcut editor.
> (Try typing "comp" in the search box.) But p
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if we used a different delimiter?
Or accept
alternative command-sequence foo \; bar ; baz
Or extend command-sequence and alternative to use a syntax like
command-sequence "foo" "bar"
alternative "command-sequence \"foo\" \"bar\"" "baz"
(this la
> But if we used a different delimiter?
that would've been my next question...
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
leuven edwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
is it possible to put a command sequence among the alternatives?
No... Our syntax is a bit weak. But you can "call" a macro in there.
But if we used a different delimiter?
rh
leuven edwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> is it possible to put a command sequence among the alternatives?
No... Our syntax is a bit weak. But you can "call" a macro in there.
JMarc
is it possible to put a command sequence among the alternatives?
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've have a quick go at this. The patch is attached.
Looks good.
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* or an alternative keyword (similar to the command-sequence)
+\bind "Tab""alternatives completion-accept; cell-forward"
Excellent idea. I see the advantages to this proposal.
+1
This strikes me as a m
G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * or an alternative keyword (similar to the command-sequence)
>
> +\bind "Tab""alternatives completion-accept; cell-forward"
+1
This strikes me as a much easier solution to implement than multiple
bindings!
JMarc
rgheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Here's the latest version of this patch. The main change is that this
> one addresses the issue of the shortcuts dialog. As I've said elsewhere,
> the dialog in its current state simply can't deal with the binding of
> multiple LFUNs to one key. My solution
28 matches
Mail list logo
