On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:28:21AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> Why? Your working in percent! if you want to work in Lenghts you can also
> input 0.1mm if you like that more. I think we should not overdue stuff.
Ok... so just accept integer percent. Should make the code as simple as
possible.
A
On 05-Dec-2001 Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I think one digit after the point should be possible. 1% of \textwidth is
> about 2 mm which is pretty crude when one needs to "tune" things". I
> know it makes code more messy...
Why? Your working in percent! if you want to work in Lenghts you can also
inp
Allan Rae wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > I am not a big fan of restricting things to some range that looks
> > sensible to me _now_, especially if that means extra code.
But we already did that (in the Graphics dialog the
unsigned_float_filter doesn't allow the user to ins
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 05:42:48PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> > And if LaTeX doesn't produce a sensible document because a -200%
> > scaled picture is requested don't you think it would be reasonable of
> > us to ensure the user can't enter such an amount
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 05:42:48PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> And if LaTeX doesn't produce a sensible document because a -200%
> scaled picture is requested don't you think it would be reasonable of
> us to ensure the user can't enter such an amount?
The picture could be serve other purposes unkno
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> | By implication of the fact that we only write out two decimal places
> | for percentages in lyxlength.C:
> | 1.00 = 100%
>
> buffer << abs(static_cast(val_/100)) << "."
>
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 01:06:33PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> > So we don't have the range limiting we used to but we also don't
> > ensure that dumb entries like negative sizes for figures can't be
> > entered.
>
> If the users wants to enter -200%, he m
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 01:06:33PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> So we don't have the range limiting we used to but we also don't
> ensure that dumb entries like negative sizes for figures can't be
> entered.
If the users wants to enter -200%, he might have a reason for doing so.
If not, he explicit
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:26:01PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Do we really need to be able keep 0.1% and the like? Isn't interger
> percentages good enough?
> (lyxlength if you didn't understand it)
I think one digit after the point should be possible. 1% of \textwidth is
about 2 mm whic
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Do we really need to be able keep 0.1% and the like? Isn't interger
> >> percentages good enough?
> >> (lyxlength if you didn't understand it)
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> Do we really need to be able keep 0.1% and the like? Isn't interger
> percentages good enough?
> (lyxlength if you didn't understand it)
Actually if you look at the code in lyxlength.C we are already
limiting users to integer percentages.
We st
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:26:01PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> Do we really need to be able keep 0.1% and the like? Isn't interger
> percentages good enough?
> (lyxlength if you didn't understand it)
Why do you want to limit the users ?
Does this limitation greatly simplifies the code?
12 matches
Mail list logo
