> Well it uses the same hand technique as I explained earlier. I don't
understand why you couldn't
> work around this problem.
I know now why: http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5274
which is a must fix.
regards Uwe
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
My patch doesn't change the Tab key handling any further, it only adds
something _if_ the Tab key is bound to LFUN_CELL_FORWARD and friend.
i see. if i understand it correctly you solved the tab problem here by making
table LFUN_CE
>Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
>> >> I can answer this, but then I have to know what you mean by
>> 'touching' ?
>> >
>> >i meant if keyboard handling of 'tab' is changed somehow by this
patch.
>>
>> This patch, which is not committed yet, will introduce no further
>> changements to key ha
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
> >> I can answer this, but then I have to know what you mean by
> 'touching' ?
> >
> >i meant if keyboard handling of 'tab' is changed somehow by this patch.
>
> This patch, which is not committed yet, will introduce no further
> changements to key handling. It
>>
>> I can answer this, but then I have to know what you mean by
'touching' ?
>
>i meant if keyboard handling of 'tab' is changed somehow by this patch.
This patch, which is not committed yet, will introduce no further
changements to key handling. It only adds a new function when Tab is
presse
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
> >> (I still want the TAB support from Vincent in, but this can also done
> >> afterwards.)
> >
> >i didn't followed this issue closely - does this patch touches keyboard 'tab'
> >handling?
> >
> >pavel
> >
>
> I can answer this, but then I have to know what yo
>Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> (I still want the TAB support from Vincent in, but this can also done
>> afterwards.)
>
>i didn't followed this issue closely - does this patch touches keyboard 'tab'
>handling?
>
>pavel
>
I can answer this, but then I have to know what you mean by 'touching' ?
The patch inse
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> (I still want the TAB support from Vincent in, but this can also done
> afterwards.)
i didn't followed this issue closely - does this patch touches keyboard 'tab'
handling?
pavel
> So from my point of view rc3 can be released.
would be nice to fix this one too
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5225
i suspect the fix is real easy, but am away on conference so can't look into it
right now...
>> (I still want the TAB support from Vincent in, but this can also done
>> afterwards.)
>
>There are a number of patches from Vincent floating around. Maybe time
>to put them in.
>
>Abdel.
I implemented the 4-spaces TAB stop yesterday-evening and it worked fine for
me.
I adjusted the Paragr
On 22/09/2008 01:00, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Uwe Stöhr schrieb:
Anyway, I just put some code to detect changes in the ui files.
Please test.
Your patch fixes the problem. I don't understand why, but it works ;-)
Well it uses the same hand technique as I explained earlier. I don't
understand why y
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > How is support for XeLaTeX?
>
> XeTeX has not reached version 1.0 and it is in the major distributions for
> only about a year now. The last months the first packages for XeTeX
> appeared, but these needs to be stabilized and more are needed before XeTeX
> can be used as curren
Uwe Stöhr schrieb:
Anyway, I just put some code to detect changes in the ui files. Please
test.
Your patch fixes the problem. I don't understand why, but it works ;-)
So from my point of view rc3 can be released.
(I still want the TAB support from Vincent in, but this can also done
afterwards
On 22/09/2008 00:06, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes schrieb:
Aren't you exaggerating a bit? There is a simple work-around: erase
the session data.
This doesn't work. The toolbars are then still not visible. E.g. go
into a formula or table and the corresponding toolbars won't come up.
I
Abdelrazak Younes schrieb:
Aren't you exaggerating a bit? There is a simple work-around: erase the
session data.
This doesn't work. The toolbars are then still not visible. E.g. go into a formula or table and the
corresponding toolbars won't come up.
I don't understand why nobody cared abou
On 21/09/2008 22:26, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> What would you like to see in before rc3 is out?
As I several times complained, since 2 weeks the toolbar handling is
completely broken:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5249
This is a showstopper since this regression to rc2 makes LyX hardly
unu
> What would you like to see in before rc3 is out?
As I several times complained, since 2 weeks the toolbar handling is completely
broken:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5249
This is a showstopper since this regression to rc2 makes LyX hardly unusable.
Besides this, I'd like to have Vi
> How is support for XeLaTeX?
XeTeX has not reached version 1.0 and it is in the major distributions for only about a year now.
The last months the first packages for XeTeX appeared, but these needs to be stabilized and more are
needed before XeTeX can be used as currently LaTeX. I'm following
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:28:27PM -0400, rgheck wrote:
> The problem is that there is no such thing as inset-specific binding.
> Tab is bound, by site.bind, to LFUN_CELL_FORWARD. This LFUN acts
> differently in different insets, or at least it can---see, e.g., the
> recently much discussed b
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
... And they can of course use the tabbing in Listings, .. If I
polish
the patch. Can you explain why tabbing in Listings and in Tables
cooperate well, while completion gets broken ?
Without looking at the code, I guess it's because completi
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Am 19.09.2008 um 13:25 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW:
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
By the way, what are we using now to accept completions? I mean,
before the little dropbox thingy comes up.
That's an issue we have to decide on. I have bound it t
>>
>> ... And they can of course use the tabbing in Listings, .. If I
polish
>> the patch. Can you explain why tabbing in Listings and in Tables
>> cooperate well, while completion gets broken ?
>
> Without looking at the code, I guess it's because completion does not
bind
> to the tab key "dire
Am 19.09.2008 um 13:25 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW:
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
By the way, what are we using now to accept completions? I mean,
before the little dropbox thingy comes up.
That's an issue we have to decide on. I have bound it to TAB
locally and it bahav
>Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Richard Heck wrote:
>> >>> By the way, what are we using now to accept completions? I mean,
>> >>> before the little dropbox thingy comes up.
>> >>
>> >> That's an issue we have to decide on. I have bound it to TAB
>> >> locally and it bahaves exactly like in the hardcode
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
> >>> By the way, what are we using now to accept completions? I mean, before
> >>> the little dropbox thingy comes up.
> >>
> >> That's an issue we have to decide on. I have bound it to TAB locally and
> >> it bahaves exactly like in the hardcoded case be
Richard Heck wrote:
>>> By the way, what are we using now to accept completions? I mean, before
>>> the little dropbox thingy comes up.
>>
>> That's an issue we have to decide on. I have bound it to TAB locally and
>> it bahaves exactly like in the hardcoded case before. But of course I lost
>>
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
t. If you press space after the end of the macro, you are in the
first cell. I do that without thinking about that every time. Btw.,
\frac\alpha has the same behaviour. It has nothing to do with macros...
Yes, that is correct. OK.
(Tab takes me to the second argument
t. If you press space after the end of the macro, you are in the
first cell. I do that without thinking about that every time. Btw.,
\frac\alpha has the same behaviour. It has nothing to do with
macros...
Yes, that is correct. OK.
(Tab takes me to the second argument, in fact.) I guess I
Stefan Schimanski wrote:
Am 18.09.2008 um 16:28 schrieb rgheck:
José Matos wrote:
We are approaching now of the time to have a new release. I am
satisfied with a 3/4 weeks period between releases as the testing by
users that usually just take a released version is not too far from
the trunk
Am 18.09.2008 um 16:28 schrieb rgheck:
José Matos wrote:
We are approaching now of the time to have a new release. I am
satisfied with a 3/4 weeks period between releases as the testing
by users that usually just take a released version is not too far
from the trunk head.
Asking a user
José Matos wrote:
We are approaching now of the time to have a new release. I am satisfied with
a 3/4 weeks period between releases as the testing by users that usually just
take a released version is not too far from the trunk head.
Asking a user to test if a problem remains one or two weeks
On Wednesday 17 September 2008 18:13:30 Neal Becker wrote:
> How is support for XeLaTeX?
Absent? :-)
--
José Abílio
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Pavel Sanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bennett Helm wrote:
> > A couple quick and easy changes for mac.bind and the lyxeditor script in
> the
> > Mac bundle should go in (attached). (Note that g is the Mac default
> for
> > "search again".)
>
> its in.
Thanks!
Bennett Helm wrote:
> A couple quick and easy changes for mac.bind and the lyxeditor script in the
> Mac bundle should go in (attached). (Note that g is the Mac default for
> "search again".)
its in.
pavel
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM, José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are approaching now of the time to have a new release. I am satisfied
> with
> a 3/4 weeks period between releases as the testing by users that usually
> just
> take a released version is not too far from the trunk head.
José Matos wrote:
> We are approaching now of the time to have a new release. I am satisfied
> with a 3/4 weeks period between releases as the testing by users that
> usually just take a released version is not too far from the trunk head.
>
> Asking a user to test if a problem remains one or two
36 matches
Mail list logo
