Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
>> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>> So... definitely a step in the right direction.
>>>
>>> I've a few issues left:
>>>
>>> 1. I'd like to get rid of the 'LyX'/'L' prefix whenever possible.
>>>I mean, it is clear that
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Stephan Witt wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > So... definitely a step in the right direction.
> >
> > I've a few issues left:
> >
> > 1. I'd like to get rid of the 'LyX'/'L' prefix whenever possible.
> >I mean, it is clear that 'LyXLayout' in src/ ha
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 08:05:56AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> >1. I'd like to get rid of the 'LyX'/'L' prefix whenever possible.
> > I mean, it is clear that 'LyXLayout' in src/ has something todo with
> > LyX, isn't it. Of course this mean
> >
> >2. rowpainter.cpp is all about a class RowPainter,
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> So... definitely a step in the right direction.
>
> I've a few issues left:
>
> 1. I'd like to get rid of the 'LyX'/'L' prefix whenever possible.
>I mean, it is clear that 'LyXLayout' in src/ has something todo with
>LyX, isn't it. Of course this mean
>
> 2. rowpai
1. I'd like to get rid of the 'LyX'/'L' prefix whenever possible.
I mean, it is clear that 'LyXLayout' in src/ has something todo with
LyX, isn't it. Of course this mean
2. rowpainter.cpp is all about a class RowPainter, which is used only
locally, so it does not show up in the .h. I'd p
On Thursday 26 April 2007 8:29:43 am Andre Poenitz wrote:
> So... definitely a step in the right direction.
>
> I've a few issues left:
>
> 1. I'd like to get rid of the 'LyX'/'L' prefix whenever possible.
>I mean, it is clear that 'LyXLayout' in src/ has something todo with
>LyX, isn't it.
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:41:53AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I think you mean in src/frontend/qt4. Do you mean "putting the two
classes into one file" or "merging the two classes"?
Right now I mean "putting two classes into one file". I have not thought
too much abou
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 11:07:04 am Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> The main reason for the renamings _now_ was that patches later
> Andre> will easier apply to 1.5.x and 1.6.x-svn.
>
> +1
That is the single reason to do it now. :-)
> JMarc
--
José Abílio
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:41:53AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes
Andre> wrote:
>> I think you mean in src/frontend/qt4. Do you mean "putting the two
>> classes into one file" or "merging the two classes"?
Andre> Right now I mean "puttin
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:41:53AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I think you mean in src/frontend/qt4. Do you mean "putting the two
> classes into one file" or "merging the two classes"?
Right now I mean "putting two classes into one file". I have not thought
too much about the latter, in any
Andre Poenitz wrote:
I just renamed the .ui files. This was straightforward. However, the
stuff in qt4/* is harder as there'll be clashes with headers in
src/*.h.
So I'd keep it as it is at the moment and rather merge
QFooDialog.[Ch] into QFoo.[Ch] whenever it makes sense.
The dependencies are
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:14:03AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> I just renamed the .ui files. This was straightforward. However, the
> stuff in qt4/* is harder as there'll be clashes with headers in src/*.h.
>
> So I'd keep it as it is at the moment and rather merge QFooDialog.[Ch]
> into QFo
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> This is not a difficult change but a large patch so I thought I
> better ask.
Go for it. Makes a lot of sense, cleaner code and more power too.
Also I have no changes to be checked-in that will be 'destroyed' by
such a patch ;-)
--
Angus
13 matches
Mail list logo
