> now. We are not forced to rewrite all of LyX during 1.1.x. Otherwise,
> what will we do for next versions?
Erm... rewrite it again? :-)
Nothing is perfect...
Andre'
--
Andre' Poenitz, TU Chemnitz, Fakultaet fuer Mathematik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... +49 3727 58 1381
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I would say that the current pseudo action system is good enough for
| now. We are not forced to rewrite all of LyX during 1.1.x. Otherwise,
| what will we do for next versions?
Well, yes. But we are allowed to think of several things at the sam
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I agree completely with Jean-Marc! We now should concentrate to make
| the kernel display, which is IMO quite a bit of work :)
You don't like the buttonText button??? :-o
Lgb
On 05-Jul-99 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Lars> Yes, but then we are not using _just_ strings anymore, and need
> Lars> a framework to have controll over all "pseudoactions" in
> Lars> use. And this will be of no use for the min
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Yes, but then we are not using _just_ strings anymore, and need
Lars> a framework to have controll over all "pseudoactions" in
Lars> use. And this will be of no use for the minibuffer and scripting
Lars> anyway.
I would say th
Alejandro Aguilar Sierra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| discussing that. Furthermore there's a lot of work to do yet.
We can agree on that. But I really don't think 1.1.x will be any
slower than 1.0.x. (memory usage is another question, and yes I think
we will use some more, but not much)
| No
For the most part, I really have no idea what you're talking about.
And I may be bringing up issues for 1.3 rather than 1.1, but . . .
> > ?? What kind of a remark is that?
> OK, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that LyX >= 1.1.x will use much more
> memory and process time for the same document
> n what?
sorry I edited the rest of the message and forgot to finish this phrase.
> I am not sure if you hva looked at the current LyXAction in 1.1.x?
Of course I have. I fixed the completion code last year (minibuffer),
remember?
> ?? What kind of a remark is that?
OK, maybe I'm wrong, bu
Alejandro Aguilar Sierra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| You know them, a simple int that is at the same time an index (saving
| space and time). OK, you suggest thaat it could n
n what?
I am not sure if you hva looked at the current LyXAction in 1.1.x?
We don't use and array of ints anymore that
On 3 Jul 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Name them please.
You know them, a simple int that is at the same time an index (saving
space and time). OK, you suggest thaat it could n
> (but does speed _really_ come into consideration anyway?)
Maybe not. It seems that lyx 1.2 won't be recommend
Alejandro Aguilar Sierra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| So all advantages on having pseudo actions will disappear.
Name them please.
| Your suggestion doesn't fill the advantages of pseudoactions (in space and
| speed).
In space they certainly do. And most probably on speed to.
(but does speed
On 3 Jul 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I know/realise that pseudoactions has served us well, but IMHO they
> are still a hack. Pseudoactions makes us f.ex. not be as type safe as
> we want to.
???!
[...]
> So entities that need to store ac kb_action and (maybe) arguments
> could store a
12 matches
Mail list logo
