On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:34:17PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> So the tabs should have the list of buffers in current view, while
> >> the Menu should have all buffers, irrespectively of the view,
> >> right? This
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:50:08PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Abdelrazak> There are two solutions:
>
> Abdelrazak> 1) Make the central widget a QTabWidget in GuiView (which
> Abdelrazak> is a QMainApplication). Then
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> While your discussion I've finished the tab implementation. :)
>
> I always said that, less talk, more action!
> :-)
>
>
>> Please test or comment it.
>> It should be possible to port it back to 1.4 (there is also a QTabBar)
>
> I think it is a
Peter Kümmel wrote:
While your discussion I've finished the tab implementation. :)
I always said that, less talk, more action!
:-)
Please test or comment it.
It should be possible to port it back to 1.4 (there is also a QTabBar)
I think it is a very good solution for 1.4 where there is onl
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Well, if you are going to do it I reckon you shall know
Abdelrazak> the different alternative. But I remember you have been
Abdelrazak> traumatized by a recent QFocusEvent experience ;-)
You r
While your discussion I've finished the tab implementation. :)
Please test or comment it.
It should be possible to port it back to 1.4 (there is also a QTabBar)
Peter
Index: frontends/LyXView.h
===
--- frontends/LyXView.h (revision 1
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Well, if you are going to do it I reckon you shall know
Abdelrazak> the different alternative. But I remember you have been
Abdelrazak> traumatized by a recent QFocusEvent experience ;-)
You read my mind :)
Abdelraza
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So the tabs should have the list of buffers in current view, while
the Menu should have all buffers, irrespectively of the view,
right? This hardly requires fancy widgets.
Abdelrazak> I am not talking
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So the tabs should have the list of buffers in current view, while
>> the Menu should have all buffers, irrespectively of the view,
>> right? This hardly requires fancy widgets.
Abdelrazak> I am not talking about fancy widget
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Your solution is good for single window LyX because then
Abdelrazak> the tab bar would just offer the same document list as the
Abdelrazak> View menu.
Abdelrazak> With multiple windows (views
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Your solution is good for single window LyX because then
Abdelrazak> the tab bar would just offer the same document list as the
Abdelrazak> View menu.
Abdelrazak> With multiple windows (views really), we have a proble
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Peter Kümmel wrote:
Here a first attempt for tabs, it's the JMarc approach, because
it's the simples way.
Abdelrazak> Yes it's the simplest way for now but not when we will
Abdelrazak> want
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Here a first attempt for tabs, it's the JMarc approach, because
>> it's the simples way.
Abdelrazak> Yes it's the simplest way for now but not when we will
Abdelrazak> want to do fancy stuff. Bu
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Here a first attempt for tabs, it's the JMarc approach,
because it's the simples way.
Yes it's the simplest way for now but not when we will want to do fancy
stuff. But I agree that would be good enough for 1.5.0.
It's only a additional
switch by a QTabBar, but I don't k
Here a first attempt for tabs, it's the JMarc approach,
because it's the simples way. It's only a additional
switch by a QTabBar, but I don't know how to get the
current name and how to emit a switch signal.
Peter
Index: LyXView.h
===
Joost Verburg wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Indeed, I can confirm that what I said is true in Office 2000 powerpoint,
don't know for later versions.
What I meant to say is that the X button should never close all open
document windows.
With current trunk, this doesn't even close a single
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Indeed, I can confirm that what I said is true in Office 2000 powerpoint,
don't know for later versions.
What I meant to say is that the X button should never close all open
document windows. The current Office versions work fine, so it looks
like a stupid mistake in
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> There are two solutions:
Abdelrazak> 1) Make the central widget a QTabWidget in GuiView (which
Abdelrazak> is a QMainApplication). Then host a new QWorkArea for each
Abdelrazak> tab. In this c
> "Joost" == Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joost> You're wrong here. Clicking the X only closes the current
Joost> window, not the others. That's also how Microsoft Office works.
Joost> Having both a "Close Window" menu entry and an X button is not
Joost> necessary.
This is wrong
On Oct 24, 2006, at 3:12 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Joost" == Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Joost> Now we have the possibility of multiple windows in a single
Joost> instance, there is no need anymore to have multiple instances.
Joost> Allowing only a single LyX process will
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> There are two solutions:
Abdelrazak> 1) Make the central widget a QTabWidget in GuiView (which
Abdelrazak> is a QMainApplication). Then host a new QWorkArea for each
Abdelrazak> tab. In this context, this would mean t
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
We _have_ tabs. But -- they are arranged vertically under a pulldown
menu :-)
I would love it to have tabs for the multiple documents.
Implementing tabs was the reason for me to become a lyx developer.
Currently we have one QWidget which shows all doc
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 10:11:41AM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >> Good. This last thing is the most important one. If you keep everything
> >> in a single instance you prevent many problems.
> >
> > And open the door to other problems... see my other post.
>
> You c
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 10:22:44AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Joost Verburg wrote:
>
> > Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > Why? Isn't the X button enough?
> > >
> > > Huh? You were asking for a way to open a new window with the same
> > > document loaded in it, or did
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > Why? Isn't the X button enough?
> >
> > Huh? You were asking for a way to open a new window with the same
> > document loaded in it, or did I get you wrong?
>
> > For example, the first time I used
> > powerpoint with two
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Good. This last thing is the most important one. If you keep everything
in a single instance you prevent many problems.
And open the door to other problems... see my other post.
You can have your command line option. I'm talking about the normal
behavior for end-user
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Why? Isn't the X button enough?
Huh? You were asking for a way to open a new window with the same
document loaded in it, or did I get you wrong?
For example, the first time I used
powerpoint with two different documents, I was really surprised and
upset by the fact t
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:15:25AM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >> We should avoid a situation where one can have multiple instances,
> >> each with multiple windows. Otherwise it becomes very confusing and it
> >> will be impossible to tell which windows share the sa
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> We _have_ tabs. But -- they are arranged vertically under a pulldown
> menu :-)
I would love it to have tabs for the multiple documents.
Implementing tabs was the reason for me to become a lyx developer.
Currently we have one QWidget which shows all documents. We could
rep
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:09:10AM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > Please not. I don't want my screen cluttered with 10 windows if I have
> > 10 documents opened at the same time, because I can only work with one
> > at the same time. Having the option to have a new wind
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I am sure this is possible (as many apps do this by default on Windows)
but I don't know _how_ to do it portably.
Maybe it requires OS-specific code.
Joost
Joost Verburg wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
We should avoid a situation where one can have multiple instances,
each with multiple windows. Otherwise it becomes very confusing and
it will be impossible to tell which windows share the same data,
which results in data-loss because of saving the
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
This is already what happens in OSX. How would windows handle that?
A mutex and a window message.
I thin that, like in firefox, we could have an option telling whether
new/opened documents should be in a new window or in the same window. We are
not going to get peo
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
We should avoid a situation where one can have multiple instances,
each with multiple windows. Otherwise it becomes very confusing and it
will be impossible to tell which windows share the same data, which
results in data-loss because of saving the wrong versions.
Agr
> "Joost" == Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joost> Now we have the possibility of multiple windows in a single
Joost> instance, there is no need anymore to have multiple instances.
Joost> Allowing only a single LyX process will make sure that there is
Joost> only one version of the
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 08:32 +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Joost Verburg wrote:
> > Michael Gerz wrote:
> >> following John L.'s design rationale that the most important things
> >> should come first, I suggest moving "new/close window" to the very
> >> bottom of menu "file", clearly separated
Bo Peng wrote:
If get it correctly, Joost would like that File->Open leads to the
creation of a new window instead of a new buffer in the current
window. I would like that File->Open behaves as it currently does,
i.e., no new window. You can always open a new window and then load
a file from ther
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
* Create a new window for each open document
Please not.
Abdel, what do you have in mind? It is kind of strange that there is
no consensus on the behavior of this feature at this late stage.
If get it correctl
Joost Verburg wrote:
Michael Gerz wrote:
following John L.'s design rationale that the most important things
should come first, I suggest moving "new/close window" to the very
bottom of menu "file", clearly separated by a, well, separator. Any
objections?
How I think things should work:
* C
Bo Peng wrote:
Any objections?
Not from me.
I do not quite get the new-window idea though. Is it close to what MS
word does?
No, quite different.
Word uses a single window for each document, and split for
two views of the same document, what is the behavior of lyx?
Buffers are opened in
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Please not. I don't want my screen cluttered with 10 windows if I have
10 documents opened at the same time, because I can only work with one
at the same time. Having the option to have a new window is ok, though.
They don't have to be on your screen, you can minimize t
If get it correctly, Joost would like that File->Open leads to the
creation of a new window instead of a new buffer in the current
window. I would like that File->Open behaves as it currently does,
i.e., no new window. You can always open a new window and then load
a file from there.
Maybe I am
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> > > * Create a new window for each open document
> >
> > Please not.
>
> Abdel, what do you have in mind? It is kind of strange that there is
> no consensus on the behavior of this feature at this late stage.
If get it correctly, Joost w
> * Create a new window for each open document
Please not.
Abdel, what do you have in mind? It is kind of strange that there is
no consensus on the behavior of this feature at this late stage.
Bo
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:17:47AM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> How I think things should work:
>
> * Create a new window for each open document
Please not. I don't want my screen cluttered with 10 windows if I have
10 documents opened at the same time, because I can only work with one
at the s
Michael Gerz wrote:
following John L.'s design rationale that the most important things
should come first, I suggest moving "new/close window" to the very
bottom of menu "file", clearly separated by a, well, separator. Any
objections?
How I think things should work:
* Create a new window for
Any objections?
Not from me.
I do not quite get the new-window idea though. Is it close to what MS
word does? Word uses a single window for each document, and split for
two views of the same document, what is the behavior of lyx? Do we
still have multiple-buffer per window?
Cheers,
Bo
47 matches
Mail list logo
