On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:36:00PM -0400, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> Acroread does a forward search. If nothing is found it pops up a msg box
> asking if you want to restart the search from the top of the doc. Seems
> like a reasonable solution to me.
Well.
Mine just core dumps. And this isn't what
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:01:39PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> "<-Find" and "Find->" should be obvoius enough. The button has
> label text too.
Look at the layout of the dialog. And it's ugly.
regards
john
John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:59:59AM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
I do not agree with this solution. The cost have having two buttons
outweighs the benefits of a more convenient (rarer) search backwards.
What's exactly the cost of "having a button" compared with "having a
checkbox
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:23:09PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> So we could add a find-replace-backward lfun that is bound to C-r (in
> emacs mode) and selects the checkbox by default.
Super idea.
john
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:16:12AM +, John Levon wrote:
>> Searching backwards is not very rare, but it is done less often.
>> And there is a mnemonic for it.
Andre> In vi I have / and ? for that.
So we could add a find-replac
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:48:51AM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> In vi I have / and ? for that.
>
> Requiring to open a dialog is already a pain, and an additional click moves
> it pretty close to being unusable. Add to that that there is no way to
> replaces structers and that part of the do
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:16:12AM +, John Levon wrote:
> Searching backwards is not very rare, but it is done less often. And
> there is a mnemonic for it.
In vi I have / and ? for that.
Requiring to open a dialog is already a pain, and an additional click moves
it pretty close to being
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:59:59AM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > I do not agree with this solution. The cost have having two buttons
> > outweighs the benefits of a more convenient (rarer) search backwards.
>
> What's exactly the cost of "having a button" compared with "having a
> checkbox"?
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:50:02AM +, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 07:12:18PM +0100, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
>
> > ATM there is a checkbox for searching backwards. I think this is awkward,
> > because you need two clicks. Also you always have to make sure you search
> > i
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 07:12:18PM +0100, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote:
> ATM there is a checkbox for searching backwards. I think this is awkward,
> because you need two clicks. Also you always have to make sure you search
> in the right direction.
>
> How about two buttons? A button 'Search fo
10 matches
Mail list logo
